With the exception of widows, single mothers have traditionally faced strong social stigma. Feminists have made removing this stigma a priority as it is essential in order to free women from the reciprocal obligations which traditionally have come with motherhood. Feminism is far more about removing women’s responsibilities than it is about increasing women’s rights, so this is a critical area of focus for feminism.

On the surface feminists have been very successful removing the stigma associated with unwed motherhood. Religious conservatives like Glenn Stanton, Director of Family Formation Studies for Focus On The Family now refer to unwed mothers as heroic, and attribute the explosion in out of wedlock births to the failings of men. Director Stanton explains this in his book on parenting (emphasis mine):

If women can’t find good men to marry, they will instead compromise themselves by merely living with a make-do man or getting babies from him without marriage. Unfortunately, this describes exactly the new shape of family growth in Western nations by exploding margins…
Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies. But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well… Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.

Director Stanton’s profoundly modern view of unwed mothers is very common amongst the most socially conservative Christians. Pat Robertson’s 700 Club celebrates a book by and about unwed mothers, while Pastor Mark Driscoll describes the problem very much like Director Stanton does above.

Despite the astounding success feminists have had convincing our cultural leaders that unwed motherhood should be seen as only normal (or even heroic), below the surface the stigma still remains. One unwed mother recently complained about the unfairness of it all at babycenter.com

I am so sick of single mom stereotypes, and this articles just tries to justify them all. I’m sick of people thinking I’m any less an awesome mom because I don’t have a husband. I’m sick of people thinking I’m trashy because my kids have different fathers.

Another over at Cafe Mom described feeling overwhelmed by the judgment she perceives:

Lately it seems like everywhere I turn, I mean EVERYWHERE, I’m faced with some stereotyping about single moms.

I feel so discouraged.

So many people seem to think that I must have been irresponsible, or slutty or stupid or selfish, or a horrible wife.

I’ve even heard someone say single mothers shouldn’t expect some man to pick up the pieces of her bad choices. It makes me feel ashamed that I even want to remarry.

Why do they automatically assume we all made some terrible choices?

And even if some of us did, are we not allowed to make mistakes?

The discussion at Cafe Mom went on for 147 comments, and there was wide agreement by the resident unwed mothers that they were indeed perceived as the OP described. Despite the best efforts of conservative Christian leaders, single mothers are still perceived negatively.

Part of the problem is that real life examples of single mothers and the impact of fatherlessness on children are far too common to ignore, so the perceptions end up being driven by reality instead of opinion leaders. While the average man or woman likely would regurgitate the PC take on single mothers, at a gut level they know something different. This probably explains why single mothers still feel the stigma even though expressing this stigma has itself become taboo.

This will only become worse moving forward, since 40% of all births in the US are now out of wedlock, and those children born in (theoretical) wedlock are still at extremely high risk of having their father expelled from the home. Single mothers are now a massive demographic, and marketers are catering to them.

The children’s network Nickelodeon caused controversy by launching a block of sexually laced programming aimed at mothers on their channel Nick Jr. as the article from KVUE explains:

One can only assume that Nickelodeon has done the market research and has determined that shows like Mom Friends Forever (MFF) are what the mothers of their youngest viewers are interested in. Here is the description of the series from Nick Mom (emphasis mine):

Follow the real lives of Judi and Kate, mom best friends who are juggling work, kids and relationships—and laughing through it all.

For a sense of the show, see the preview titled Dating Again. From the website it appears that one of the two mom friends is married but it isn’t clear if her husband is the father of her children. Either way, the ostensible new face of motherhood has a trashiness which is impossible to ignore, and the focus on “dating” is a big part of it.

To some degree this represents an overall loss of class by mothers in general, but it is also clear that single mothers and soon to be single mothers are leading the cultural charge here. As this progresses further it will put more and more strain on “team woman” as higher class married mothers become less and less comfortable being associated with low class single mothers. While divorce fantasies like Eat Pray Love are clearly appealing to the majority of married women and many will be tempted by the “liberation” offered by mixing raunchiness in with their identities as mothers, the tackiness of this becomes more difficult to conceal every year.

332 Responses to The normalization of the trashy single mother.

Well, if you treat sluts the same as if they are good women, then by default you are treating good women the same as if they are sluts… which, as you pointed out, is going to make it quite difficult for “team woman” to stick together, especially when you inevitably add hypergamy and sexual competition to the mix.
It amazes me that so many married mothers wish to stick up for the “heroic” single mothers. I wonder whether married women realize just how much of their own children’s resources are diverted to the little bastards of single mothers through government wealth transfers. Are they happy with the theft from their own, legitimate children to subsidize the slut’s brood?
It further astounds me that faithful, married women will stick up for “heroic” single mothers when I consider the fact that the slut is in direct sexual competition for the attentions of the husband. Does the married woman not understand that the single slut envies her life, and will happily spread her legs to lure away a good provider?
Faithful married mothers are the biggest loser in this lie…. Their God-given role in the home is debased, their legitimate children lose resources to bastards, and their sexual market value is lowered since sluts are no longer punished for attempting to lure away married men.
Of course, if faithful married women wish to argue that a slut should not be judged, and that they themselves are really no better then the slut, then who am I, as a man, to argue? I will simply accept that what they say is true and act accordingly.

It amazes me that so many married mothers wish to stick up for the “heroic” single mothers.

Motherhood was held up, at least on some level. Something that has been frowned upon by many women was being labeled as good and strong. For a time, married mothers were able to project a portion of this onto themselves. Is it logical? No, but I suspect this is what was happening. Now that the heroic label is slipping off, they don’t want that projection to happen any more.

Despite the best efforts of conservative Christian leaders, single mothers are still perceived negatively.

This is getting a bit tiring Dalrock. Yes, these people are perceived as conservative Christians by the secular libertarian culture, but aren’t.

That’s like calling a Churchian Princess/Tea Party extraordinaire Palin a Christian. That’s wrong. Incorrect. She’s a feminist through and through. She has a strange mish-mash of libertarianism with what she thinks is conservatism.

We have far-right crazies like Rick Santorum criticizing single motherhood all of the time. Todd Akin doesn’t approve of single mothers. Jim DeMint doesn’t like them either. Mrs. Duggar has 19 children and she’s married to the father of all of her babies.

Point out the subversion of Christianity by the enemy and how the enemy occupies the house. Don’t start applying reactionary labels to mainstream folk.

[D: By all means, correct me then. Who are the real conservative Christian leaders if I’ve got it all wrong?]

I may not have been clear in my previous post…. Men overall are big losers in this system. What I intended to say (and partially did say) is that FAITHFUL, MARRIED women are the biggest losers here. Now obviously womyn who intend to check out of the marriage for cash and prizes are not big losers. But women who are genuinely in it to make their marriages work, and who truly aspire to be good wives and mothers, are completely undermined by this system. Yet they still contribute to it. Our current system holds that a woman is a fool and a sucker if she is a faithful, married mother. We still have shaming, its just directed at good women instead of sluts.
This is why slut shaming is so important…. Someone WILL be shamed, either the sluts or the chaste. Yet for slut shaming to work, it has to be done by women. And to their own detriment faithful married women are by and large not doing it. Note to faithful, married women… To save your own marriage, your own family, your own children, and perhaps even the sluts….. GREASE THE ROPE ALREADY!

My parents divorced in the 70’s when I was about 7 or 8. There were some kids whose parents frowned upon their own children hanging out and being friends with me because of my single mom. The stigma was real and I noticed it more & more as I got older. Times have certainly changed.

A big part of what’s driving this is an insistence on equality. All persons, all moms, must be seen as equal. A married mom is no better in this view than a single mom. And the feminist culture demands that there never be any inquiry on how the single mom became a single mom. “That doesn’t matter,” we are told. “She is a hero.”

Moreover, there is an insistence that divorced women must not be viewed as lesser or “damaged goods” vis a vis married women. And women who divorce for unhaaaappiness must not be viewed as having lesser character than women who divorce physically abusive or adulterous husbands. “It doesn’t matter,” we are told. “The divorce must have been the husband’s fault.”

The term “single mom” is often misused. A single mother is a woman who has never married but has a child. A lot of divorced women refer to themselves as “single moms” but they’re not — they’re divorced women with kids. Ditto the military widow — she is a widow with kids. There is a difference.

For whatever reason, the media likes to group all women without a partner with kids as “single moms.” Maybe someone can enlighten me as to the agenda behind this because I’m sure there has to be one.

Sad to say I’ve got some experience with this via in-laws. Of the various neices and nephews, the only ones with kids are the ones that aren’t married. I tell a lie. One of the ‘fathers’ is married, just not to his baby-momma. My wife knows it’s wrong, but won’t say anything to keep in her family’s good graces. I don’t especially want her to curse them all unto the seventh generation or anything, but it’s a bit disconcerting to see what she’s having to pretend is normal in order to keep the peace. Storm clouds are brewing.

Days of Broken Arrows, I think it has to do with the fact that “single” (never-married) mothers (as well as divorced mothers) look better (thus achieving the objective of normalization) if they are lumped together with widowed mothers, who have never been condemned.

[D: Good catch. It now says “fatherlessness”. That Nick Mom site crashed my system twice while I was writing this. Their video pages pegged the linux flash player eventually triggering an emergency shut down due to cpu overheating.]

You know that I am always amazed by your acute perception and how you see what you see in the most benign seeming things. You consistently point out the forces that are arrayed against men and that are for women. I am sure you can also see the multitude of commercials that typically do not show fathers, that show happy fulfilled women with their children, without a man, both getting along quite fine, thriving, without the burden nor necessity of a man.

It was a very good observation of you to see how Nick was pandering to the Single Mom crowd and also, to those currently married women that are fantasizing about becoming Classy and Fabulous divorced women out in pursuit of that Hunky Handyman Millionaire.

Nick is along the trail of the TV channels that children and, indirectly, women watch. So, it’s good that Nick can help those women rationalize the trauma that they have or will put their children through, the emotional and financial deprivation the kids will experience. After all, the kids will be alright and grow up fine in the end without a father, won’t they? All children should just want to see that mommy is not ever unhaaapppy, shouldn’t they? It will all be fine when Mommy starts bringing strange men into the home and into her bedroom, won’t it? Nick says so, so it must be true, isn’t it?

I find your work as having immense value to today’s man. Your other readers probably see it having value in the defense of marriage. But to me, I see it was one more strong reason to never marry, to immediately accept marriage as an institution of the past, and to look forward to the opportunities of living as a free man without the fetters and burdens, without the yoke, without the chains and shackles that the world wishes to place on men and to shoehorn men into the role as modern husband and father.

I see as this topic today as exemplary of the forces and powers arrayed against a modern man. Those things that you point out to us are often at the point where it is a fait accompli, one more example that things are too far gone for men to stop the constant erosion of the ground beneath their feet. You have shown to us with data after data that women do not wish to marry and if married, they wish to divorce if at all possible. Nothing can stand in the way of them getting what they wish. Politicians will never stand up to it. You have given evidence that church leaders will not. And now, commercial and entertainment interests are actively capitalizing on a latent desire that sits in the minds of women. They want to have children and they do not want to need a husband. I see it as a latent desire that is not a minority viewpoint among women but rather in the majority. Women do not want husbands.

Glenn Stanton is one thing, but Nick is something entirely different altogether. Nick is real power to effect the mindset of children, particularly young girls, and of women. It is not just subject matter, it is also advertising dollars, and big business, big acceptance, big conditioning. Conditioning and Habit are far more powerful than all the laws and police to codify behavior. Nick can do more to change mindsets in one season than Glenn Stanton can do during his whole career. To secular society he is marginalized already. But Nick is the new gospel to PostModern mothers. I am sure that Nick has focus groups of women in rooms and ask them what matters to them, what is most important to them, what is most important to other women. And this show, MFF, is what they got. They did not dream this up as a novel idea, this is a focus group driven reality of what women wish to see.

So while I sympathize with the angst that your readers must feel at the erosion of an institution so important to them and to their values, it is one more nail in the coffin, maybe even more than that, maybe it is the hasp and the lock, to seal the death of marriage as an institution.

My viewpoint is that modern fatherhood and modern marriage is a stupid waste of a man’s life, that the erosion and the ultimate end of marriage as the primary form of societal organization is, in the end, a liberating thing for men, that there are better ways to spend a life than being a slave to a woman. I know that this view is not ever going to be widely accepted on this site.

But reality is reality. Woman view men in the most pejorative manner possible and wish to organize society to be rid of them as a necessity in the lives of women and nothing more than functionaries to be called from time to time to provide some service or as recreation. The hunky handyman millionaire is the ideal because he combines all of those into a single person.

The wise man will delight in this development and see in it his freedom and the possibilities of living a full and complete life as a free man. Yes, society used to compel women to marry to gain the financial means she required to raise children but it also used to compel men to marry to gain access to sex and company. Neither is true any longer. The life of the modern married man is insipid, boring, lonely, and rife with emotional and physical abuse. Men no longer have to subject themselves to it.

So Dalrock, you have your message and I have mine. And the underlying reality of your message is that it makes mine that much easier and that much more defensible.

@deti:Moreover, there is an insistence that divorced women must not be viewed as lesser or “damaged goods” vis a vis married women. And women who divorce for unhaaaappiness must not be viewed as having lesser character than women who divorce physically abusive or adulterous husbands. “It doesn’t matter,” we are told. “The divorce must have been the husband’s fault.”

Everyone probably already knows this, but this is fully enshrined in employment law, housing law, and pervasively in the laws of contract. Discrimination based on marital status will get you the same kind of financial makeover as an unhaaaapy wife.

Days of Broken ArrowsThe term “single mom” is often misused. A single mother is a woman who has never married but has a child. A lot of divorced women refer to themselves as “single moms” but they’re not — they’re divorced women with kids. Ditto the military widow — she is a widow with kids. There is a difference.

These statements are true, however they are clearly discriminatory against babymommas, therefore these statements border on crimethink in our brave new world (twofer! No extra charge).

For whatever reason, the media likes to group all women without a partner with kids as “single moms.” Maybe someone can enlighten me as to the agenda behind this because I’m sure there has to be one.

It’s obvious. By conflating babymommas with divorced women with widows, the stigma of being a babymomma is reduced. Of course, the dignity of the widows is reduced, too, but they’re mostly old, so who cares? The New Normal is all inclusive, but it’s more inclusive of some than of others. There are reasons for this.

One reason is not obvious: in the US, single and divorced women with children tend to vote for Party A, while married women tend to vote for Party B. This is in the aggregate, I’m aware there are exceptions, I’m writing in the probabalistic “this urn contains 700 green balls and 300 blue ones for a total of 1,000, therefore…” sense. So social policies that encourage women to marry and stay married will tend to increase the number of women voters for Party B. Social policies that encourage women to be brave, single mothers, or to Eat, Betray, Leave and commit divorce theft, will tend to create more voters for Party A.

It is no accident, as the Marxists used to say, that Party A has one set of priorities for social policy, and Party B has a different set. One of the priorities of Party A for a long time has included removing the stigma of unmarried women who have bastard children. And many people in the media are members of Party A, thus creators of “infotainment” have a political agenda…

You’re quibbling over semantics. In a census standpoint you are correct, a single mother was never married and a divorced mother was. But in a social standpoint, one that wishes to portray women in a heroic and socially acceptable light, both are one in the same. Both are celebrated among women as acceptable and actually preferred ways of raising children without that brute of a man in the home.

“This is getting a bit tiring Dalrock. Yes, these people are perceived as conservative Christians by the secular libertarian culture, but aren’t.”

The only definition that we have to operate by is the one that the majority of people use. Trust me, these types (by this name or any other) are the ones in power and so Dalrock’s statement is 100% accurate. I know because the same people who operate under this pretense in my church have actively been trying to shut down any attempt i have made to educate the men in the church of game and the dangers they face in marriage.

“For whatever reason, the media likes to group all women without a partner with kids as “single moms.” Maybe someone can enlighten me as to the agenda behind this because I’m sure there has to be one.”

Demonization of irresponsible men. Pure and simple. She’s not divorced because she wants to be, but because some evil man did something/anything/nothing to her. Victim mentality

“It amazes me that so many married mothers wish to stick up for the “heroic” single mothers.”

They will defend team women against direct criticism. With one notable exception: second wives. They may begin marriage with an open mind, but the ex wifes vindictiveness is too hard to ignore.

It is an odd little demonstration of nt principles. The second wife will be won over to the truth by seeing reality without a word from the husband. The ex wifes behaviour is often enough.

I am always amazed at how many woman have said privately, they would not have believed it, until if affected them personally. In other words, solipsism by default until reality proves otherwise. It drives me to despair that women are so irrational to deny truth, until they experience otherwise.

“i’m a single mom and I rock”, therefore all single moms rock.
Or that because some black people can go to college and get a career that removes all other doubts about black society in America from facing questions on their status.

Since when does one exception(even a self-granted one in the case of these moms, who i have doubts on) mean that all cases are therefore the same and immune from criticism.

Well, if our society is going to celebrate Stanton’s heroic whores, we at least need to be honest about what we are promoting: child abuse.
Children from single mother homes are exponentially more likely to drop out of school, commit crime, become unwed teenage mothers themselves (for the girls), abuse drugs and alcohol, and, drum roll please: children living with a single mother who has a boyfriend in the house are 70-100 times more likely to be murdered. Yay hero single moms!
If a young woman finds herself knocked up and unwed, she has one heroic choice which is largely unsupported by today’s culture, which is to give her child up for adoption. Their are innumerable couples who will provide stable, loving, two-parent homes waiting for the chance to adopt these children. The fact that the sluts who have these children choose to keep them, even when they are unable to provide for them, says it all…. CASH AND PRIZES from Uncle Sugar. Want to solve the problem? Give unwed mothers a choice… a good home for the baby via adoption OR she gives up ALL welfare/government assistance. You’d see those legs start slamming shut by yesterday.

“Since when does one exception(even a self-granted one in the case of these moms, who i have doubts on) mean that all cases are therefore the same and immune from criticism.”

This correlates with Dalrock’s last post. It’s not an aberration or an exception. The Social Pathologist has noticed this trend as well. Women genuinely are more aggressive than men in the current paradigm. The problem is that it is not a natural occurrence. These women really do carry the responsibility well. The problem is all the social re-engineering it took to make it possible. Also, the government will soon discover the problem that men have faced since the beginning, you can’t make a woman happy.

Okrahead, if there was a communicable disease, something caused by a virus or bacteria, that did to children what divorce or bastardy does, we’d have a major research program, backed up by an entire month like Pink month, with telethons, and races “for the cure”, and change bottles in every convenience store, etc. all aimed at finding a cure or vaccine. A cure and’/or prevention.

But. Divorce is a choice, and 60% of the time “It’s Her Choice”. Ditto bastardy, it’s her choice one way or another. So we can’t even talk about the effects that the chosen lifestyle has on children. Because that would take away choices from women., potentially.

This should clarify the priorities of the leaders of society for all of s.

“Women genuinely are more aggressive than men in the current paradigm. The problem is that it is not a natural occurrence. These women really do carry the responsibility well. The problem is all the social re-engineering it took to make it possible.”

Women are more aggressive — until you call on most of them to take responsibility for their love lives and sex lives.

They are more assertive until you tell them that maybe they should approach men they might be interested in and take on some of the risk of rejection and some of the financial burden of dating.

They are more assertive until you start expecting them to get real results in the workplace and sustain that level of productivity for years and decades.

They are more assertive until you call them out on their bad behavior.

Deti is right, women are exactly as assertive and aggressive as they can get away with being without consequences. They will test this limit on a micro scale and a macro scale, game (or more correctly, psychologists) have identified this before.

And they are allowed to vote! Not only that, women are THE swing demographic that will determine who carries the state of Ohio, and thus, women in Ohio will determine your next president.

As someone formerly entrenched in that world, I can say that the Trad-Cons have it wrong. Yes, so do the liberals, but just because one illusory side is wrong doesn’t mean that the apparent “opposite” is right.

Wimmins groups vociferously object to adoption. They would rather the mother abort the child, or subject it to the slow death, fewer opportunities and shortened lifespan of a single parent household.

They’re aware, consciously or not, that if a woman carries a baby to term, she’s much less likely to want to get rid of it. If she’s already agreed to give the baby away or is forced to by circumstances, the experience might convince her that she wants her own baby after all. So pushing adoption ultimately will result in more women having babies, maybe even staying home with them. Egad! That goes against everything they’re working for.

Dalrock, you asked, “Where are the real conservative Christian leaders?” and I agree with you that they are not as visible as Glenn Stanton, but what about someone like Doug Phillips from Vision Forum? Why can’t we count someone like him? I do not see any area where his theology is unbiblical, and he certainly is outspoken. People who ascribe to similar beliefs as Doug Phillips are a growing minority, if for no other reason than because of our high fertility rates.

an observer – from your profile name I gather you observe – but yet you post as well – therefore you are a fake, a spammer and a troll. The same logic you use to dismiss me as a troll and spammer basically because you do not agree with my rebuttle to Deti (and you don’t agree with my humor of listing a bogus website : yomama.com in my profile) is the same logic I use to out and dismiss you. You claim to be an observer but yet you post… There we are – two men who are at odds with one another… this is why the feminist have such influence over western culture today.

“Ok, you’re a spammer and a troll. We get that from your ‘profile name.’

That’s a total bullshit label for two reasons: one the child doesn’t deserve to suffer for his irresponsible mother’s mistakes, and two, it only applies to MALE children born out of wedlock. The last thing we need is more anti male sexism. We’re drowning in it already.

A lot of single moms defend their choice by explaining that the sperm donor left/abused her/never got a job/etc. We’ll see real progress when the single moms are then shamed for being so stupid to have sex with such an obviously lousy man.

My next door neighbour is a single mother in her mid to late twenties with a little boy who has just started school. Unlike her aging-cougar predecessor she does not entertain vast numbers of ever changing men [frequently for a fee], and seems to be (so far as I can tell) a perfectly capable mother – especially as the boy can sometimes I suspect be very trying. There may even be a father (who occasionally materialises- who may be a husband – or not – I don’t know – I never enquire). There is nothing either “awesome” or “trashy” about her – she is just a young mother,.

Sometimes a gaggle of young females visit her – I can hear the laughing through the walls – they are preparing to go out to a local nite-spot I suppose. Men can only (despite the fantasies of the PUAs and Gamers ) deal with the females that are available, and I suppose that there must be men who would find her attractive – she is niether unappealing nor unpleasent – and would ignore the impediment which is her so;, indeed, I had a friend who twenty years or so ago (bemoaning his single state to me) met a woman with a nine year old daughter. They married and produced two children of their own, and are (I lost contact) but I would guess still happily together – they are very simple and easy-going people.

These people are far from being trashy, even though they may have the ordinary frailties – or even bad luck – that affect humans. Perhaps things did not work out the first time but maybe it will the second. It is however when women are led to believe that they have endless chances to rechoose, from which it becomes clear that they are incapable of making a decision and sticking to it, that the term “trashy” is rightly and fairly applied. Should one give those bemoaning their fate – as the women quoted above do – the benefit of the doubt? I think not, and for the same reason that those thirty-something corporate spinsters whose profiles I have recently been reading on OK Cupid should not. Those women as one can see from their photos are not war-pigs, but neither are they great beauties. They describe their wonderful lives – how they are “passionate” about their work, love travel, and all the usual goodies that come from living in London – yet despite being empowered with their fancy salaries, are somehow nevertheless incapable of finding “a suitable boy”, which is why in desparation they have to resort to on-line dating. How, I want to know, is it that they took twenty years or more to discover that they wanted a man (they never mention marriage but that is what one must suppose they seek)? They, like the trashy single-mums, have been excercising endless choice and now at an age when a proper family – and knocking out one child is not essentially a proper family – want to settle with some hapless beta. If I wish to be a concert pianist, advising you of that at the age of thirty five when I have been changing my chosen instrument by the year sounds like delusional foolishness. As Pliny the Elder rightly says somewhere in Natural History, men acquire their careers, their wives and their character (and he would have added their chosen musical instrument) when young. Those women chose corporate cubicles (and doubtless the alpha-carousel) and now, as their looks fade and their fertility declines, having made their bed must lie it it. One would (to quote Oscar Wilde) have to have a heart of stone not observe it and laugh.

1) If a woman both conceives and gives birth outside of marriage, she is trashy. That goes 10x if she fails to quickly put the child up for adoption (if available; handicapped/mentally-ill/black kids are in little demand, and understandably so).

2) A romantically unattached woman with children is already taken with respect to her life, and not available. I have worked out what I call the unavailability formula for women:

3 cats = 2 children = 1 husband.

So, if a woman has 3 cats or 2 kids, she should correctly be regarded as as unavailable for possible marriage (really, romance beyond a risky pump-and-dump at most) as if she had a husband, to whom she was unquestionably genuinely married, and residing with her.

3) To not differentiate between degrees of morality in women is to classify them all as immoral. After all, any man past the age of 14 with 3 brain cells knows that some women aren’t to be trusted, not one bit. If women are all morally the same, then that rules out ANY being admirable and morally credible enough to enter into any long-term, and/or exclusive relationship with. And, what could be more long-term than choosing to marry her with the plan to have children with her?

4) The term “bastard” is very useful, and should be retained. First, it brings shame upon the mother (who 100% controlled the decision to produce, and keep, the child in question). Shaming is a valid and often effective social motivating technique. Second, a bastard is likely to be damaged goods, and this is useful for individuals and organizations (ranging from colleges to employers to would-be romantic partners to even potential friends and neighbors) to know.

Effects of Fatherlessness (US Data)
1) BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS/ RUNAWAYS/ HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS/CHEMICAL ABUSERS/ SUICIDES
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God’s Children.)
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)

2) JUVENILE DELINQUENCY/ CRIME/ GANGS
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
California has the nation’s highest juvenile incarceration rate and the nation’s highest juvenile unemployment rate. Vincent Schiraldi, Executive Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, “What Hallinan’s Victory Means,” San Francisco Chronicle (12/28/95).
These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to run away.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
20 times more likely to end up in prison.

3) TEENAGE PREGNANCY
“Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages. All these intergenerational consequences of single motherhood increase the likelihood of chronic welfare dependency.” Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Atlantic Monthly (April 1993).
Daughters of single parents are 2.1 times more likely to have children during their teenage years than are daughters from intact families. The Good Family Man, David Blankenhorn.
71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.

Romney at the second debate madea hopeful though by necessity a circumspect statement on single motherhood — appealing to the value of both fathers and mothers raising their children. This is a positive step since George W. Bush, who openly lauded single mothers.

In a way though, nature will reassert itself like always, and ideology will accommodate itself. As Lawrence Auster noted, for a liberalism or an element of it to collapse, people can’t just “know” that liberalism is bad. They have to ‘feel’ it. In the case of single mothers, you ‘feel’ it by being viscerally repulsed by the ugliness, obesity, and vulgarity of the average single mother. Ever seen how fat and hideous they all are?

In a recent conversation with my mother regarding women and finding a wife (I’ve been feeding her bits of the Red Pill; she’s receptive but still very solipsistic and Team Woman), she enthusiastically said “You know what else? You’re at the age (28) now where there are a LOT of single moms out there that are your age and they would just love to have a reliable guy like you” trying to be helpful and encouraging. I about hit the fucking ceiling. She had to get off the phone right then, so I explained to her via text why that was so insulting to me and told her to never mention it again.

Do know how ridiculous it feels to have your own mother say something so blatantly Team Woman and solipsistic to her oldest son? It blew my fucking mind.

It also made me realize a few other things. I know that she raised me to be the Beta Nice Guy of Beta Nice Guys (my parents are still together, but my dad gave me very little in the way of life advice or guidance). But what I didn’t realize is that she raised me to literally sacrifice and supplicate myself and my will to someone else (to anyone, but mostly to women) and so to her, me wifing a single mom (and spend all my money and productive life raising some other asshole’s kids) would be almost more fulfilling to her based on the way she raised me than for me to marry a young woman, pass on her and my dad’s genes, and have a family of my own. How fucking sick is that??? It confirms everything I’ve read in such a single, strident example that it left me speechless for an hour or 2.

Team Woman and Solipsism: It literally overrides the basic impulse to pass on one’s genes through future generations.

“I am sure you can also see the multitude of commercials that typically do not show fathers, that show happy fulfilled women with their children, without a man, both getting along quite fine, thriving, without the burden nor necessity of a man.”

In the UK, husbands are often portrayed as idiots in commercials.

The reason in both cases is that the ads are targeted to the people who do the buying, who are mostly women unless the product is something like timber or motorcycles. Marketing departments don’t set out to waste money, and their market research has presumably found that this kind of advertising gets better results.

By the same mechanism, the discovery that “sex sells” has gradually sexualized our entire culture, not only in advertisements but also in the television programs that surround them, and whose principal duty is to improve their ratings. Where once we had situation comedies, now we have “situation shagging”, and these shows are immensely popular, particularly among women.

There is something inevitable about this in a society with mass media, if it values free markets and, in particular, free speech. Email was once an excellent medium for communication, but perfect freedom of speech has turned it into 95% spam. In the wider culture, free speech will tend to be dominated by schmucks appealing to our basest emotions in order to sell us stuff.

The best way to get a grip on the feminization of advertising is for men to take over more of the purchasing decisions. For some reason, you never hear feminists mention that, even when they are talking about division of household labor.

After reading through the Cafe Mom comment thread I think one commonality of all their experiences is a need for personal validation through motherhood.

With the exception of the widows, all of these women are in positions of necessity that they themselves chose to put themselves in. That’s going to sound harsh, and I expect there will be a chorus of women ready to screech about how they didn’t choose to be in an abusive relationship, but on some level they chose the father of their children and thus the conditions they find themselves in.

These women feel victimized, but they find unity and purpose in that victimization. When you take away the fabricated pride of being an Independent Single Mother® what are they left with? The bitter reality that what they’re experiencing – financial hardship, behavioral problems, drastically lowered SMV, social stigmatization, etc. – is all largely the result of their own doing. Single Mom Pride is a buffer against acknowledging this, and single mommies will fight like cornered animals to legitimize and hold onto the only thing that validates their egos.

White Knights like Glen Stanton and other churchianity notables (all reared by the feminine imperative) are just responding with their feminine acculturated conditioning, but more so, they’ve recognized the profitability of catering to this need for Single Mom pride and affirmation.

And they’re not alone. As more and more women are forced to become painfully aware of the fact that the conditions they find themselves in are the results of their decisions as prompted by the feminine imperative, more marketeers will find ways to exploit them. They feed that “your life sucks girl, but it’s not your fault, we’re all in this sisterhood together” need for a comunal validation, thus we see the rise of the Kate Bolicks selling the pride of “all the single ladies” to aging spinsters, or we get the feminist retreads of the Hannah Rosins crowing about the End of Men and how unnecessary Men are for women. They’re just pedaling the same ego salve that Glen Stanton is from the secular side, Glen just slaps a Jesus Fish logo on his brand.

ar10308 –
Right there with you, bud. My mother was a feminist in good standing back in the day. When she found out I was a conservative, she asked me (in all seriousness) why I hated women. What do you say to something like that when it’s your mother?

@CP,
Yeah. The crazy thing is that she sees a lot of what Feminists do and completely hates it (abortion, takeover of the universities, etc). She’s a Christian Conservative. She was a SAHM for 25 years and really loved it. She loved being with her kids.

She currently works at a major state university as a secretary for the Information Sciences Department, and always tells me how much time and money they waste on trying to recruit women to such a limited effect. She can’t figure out why they bother.

But still, some things just about women can’t be helped. I’m just deeply thankful I’m discovering this stuff now before I’ve married anyone.

@ar10308,
I’m glad for you. I’ve got an in-law nephew that’s overcome a lot of family crap to build up a good life for himself. Now he’s looking to get married, but he’s stuck in a college town and has bitter college students or bitter single moms to choose from. I just want to shake him, but what can you do? He’s going to resent anything beyond the occassional nudge until he gets there himself. I was the same way. Doesn’t make it less painful to watch, though. He hasn’t married yet, but it’s a race between him waking up and some wymyn-grrrl settling for him.

If women can’t find good men to marry, they will instead compromise themselves by merely living with a make-do man or getting babies from him without marriage.

What nailed me in this statement is the word ‘compromise’. A compromise is essentially a choice in violation of declared standards, in this case, the biblical standards on marriage. If there is a so-called lack of good men, they are choosing to compromise the biblical standards.

Christian men who are weak-willed make choices of compromise and they pay the beta consequence of those compromises (and possibly eternal consequences). No sane Christian would think this somehow strange.

However, women who compromise are, as Dalrock has pointed out, considered heroes. This, to me, is blatant injustice and insanity.

Dalrock, you asked, “Where are the real conservative Christian leaders?” and I agree with you that they are not as visible as Glenn Stanton, but what about someone like Doug Phillips from Vision Forum? Why can’t we count someone like him? I do not see any area where his theology is unbiblical, and he certainly is outspoken. People who ascribe to similar beliefs as Doug Phillips are a growing minority, if for no other reason than because of our high fertility rates.

Going back to Hby7i’s original comment, he stated that it was tiring of me to keep raising the point. Rereading his comment, I think he may be misunderstanding what I was getting at. I’m not trying to discredit the idea of real conservative Christians. For example, I’m not trotting out the tired line of “This Christian leader is a hypocrite on sexual morality so don’t listen to the Bible on sexual morality” (as we often see by those pushing gay marriage, etc). My point in the OP was that feminists have been unbelievably successful in removing the stigma of single mothers, to the extent that the mainline conservative Christian leadership is now their enforcer.

I keep mentioning this because it is anything but common knowledge. What percent of Christians do you know who would see FOTF, 700 Club, Driscoll, etc as furthering the feminist agenda on sexual morality? Likewise with the Southern Baptists and Mohler that I detailed in a previous post, and the movies by the Kendrick brothers. I don’t spend my energy proving that denominations/organizations which support gay marriage and women pastors are weak on biblical morality, because that isn’t particularly enlightening. Everyone already knows that, right? My point here is that if there is another popular group seen as the biblical stalwarts on the family and I’ve left them out, please name them. I don’t want to create a straw man here.

I don’t know Doug Phillips, but I don’t doubt that somewhere there are others trying to fight this. If you can point me to something of Doug’s fighting the feminsim of Stanton and the rest of them I’d love to see it. Either way, assuming Doug is fighting the good fight, he needs us to drive awareness of the problem. I’m not gunning for those who are fighting the good fight, I’m trying to help clear their path. But as I’ve taken great pains to demonstrate, denial is our first and biggest challenge to overcome.

I’ll keep using a corrupt police force as a metaphor. The handful of honest cops on a corrupt force know what they are up against. When someone creates a movement to take on the corruption, it would be flat out insane for them to be offended because “not all cops on the force are corrupt”. The honest ones won’t be out protesting the calls to clean up the corruption. It is the corrupt ones who will take great offense at being “falsely accused”. Why do honest Christians keep getting offended when I point out that the other 98% they have to deal with are corrupt? If my pointing out the corruption offends them, are they really the honest ones?

This quote regarding the monetary system and fiat currency I think can be pretty much directly applied to the ‘fiat normalization of trashy single moms’ and the SMP/MMP:

“It should be clear that today’s political class and the banking cartels led by the central banks would never consider the adoption of a sound market-based money voluntarily. Too many ‘free lunches’ would be at stake for those profiting from the system. An enormous shift in economic and political power would result. Governments would have to shrink dramatically and central economic planners and their myriad advisers and intellectual handmaidens would all be out of a job. Banks would find credit expansion more risky and difficult. In short, from the point of view of today’s bureaucratic and intellectual elites, the idea of voluntarily adopting a sound market-based money is ruled out completely. To them it is undoubtedly the most toxic subject imaginable.

This is also why the system as such is very rarely questioned in the mainstream press or by mainstream economists. It is a topic that is not even up for debate – everybody proceeds as though it were perfectly normal that money and interest rates are subject to central planning. The only debates revolve around how to ‘improve on the plan’, not on whether it might actually be better to abandon the plan altogether. If a mainstream economist were to suggest that central banks and fiat money should be abolished, it would be akin to farting in church.”

It would be nice to hear something like the following:
*You willingly slept with your boyfriend? How dare you!
*You aborted your illegitimate child? How dare you!
*You tease your boyfriend into giving you access to his wallet without accepting his marriage proposal? How dare you!
*You divorced your hard-working, stable, responsible Christian husband because you’re no longer in love with him? How dare you!
*How dare you listen to music that celebrates revenge and murder against men! How dare you!
*How dare you judge men solely by their wealth, success and good looks! How dare you!
*How dare you expect your husband to bankroll your worldwide tour while he stays home, takes care of the kids and never sees you! How dare!
*How dare you proclaim your submission to the man Jesus Christ, but not to the man you married! How dare you!
*How dare you!
*HOW DARE YOU!!

Mark Driscoll needs to crawl in a hole and die. I am amazed at how a man who can preacher very effectively on many topics is so completely neutered in his faith due to feminism. It’s absolutely mind boggling.

Furthermore, when Driscoll yells at men for sleeping with their girlfriends, he does not seem to consider the fact that it takes two to tango. Of course, if he were to assume that women were somehow overpowered and seduced by their boyfriends against their will, he’d have to change his message:

How dare you rape the women in this church!

Of course, accusing hundreds of men of rape would pretty much mark him as kook and feminist hero.

The North American Church thinks that it is NOT normalizing the trashy single mom.

Stanton’s position is nonbiblical to say the least. Most churches I’ve encountered take a position something like this:

“The single mother (through divorce or illegitimacy) has made mistakes, but since she is here in church, we need to show her love. It is not her fault that she is divorced because obviously if her ex-husband/father of her child(ren) were doing what she wanted, they would not be divorced. It is not her fault she had a bastard child. A man obviously tricked her into sex. (At least she didn’t get an abortion!) We must help her through her difficult times. And it is important that she be considered for marriage. If at all possible we need to get her married off. She says she wants a husband, and her children need a father (figure). You single men need to man up and consider marriage proposals for these women, because it’s the Right Thing To Do.”

The church believes it has to show love, not judgment. But there does need to be more pressure brought to bear on women to take responsibility for their lives. The Church does not do that because it does not want to be accused of judgmentalism and sexism. Most protestant churches are affiliated with the National Council of Churches which is leftist to the core and not in favor of sound biblical principles or theology.

Protests or simple pointing out that perhaps maybe the woman had something to do with her divorce, or that she wanted to have sex, or just wanted a child, are met with statements like:

“You’re a judgmental fool! Take that beam out of your eye before you start trying to take the mote out of her eye!”

“Judge not lest ye be judged!”

“You have no right to sit in judgment of her! She’s here in church, isn’t she?!”

“There’s no point in going back to the past. What’s done is done, and it can’t be changed now.” “Uh, yes, but don’t you think we can encourage her to examine it so maybe she won’t make those mistakes again?” “AAAARRGH! Don’t you think she’s done that already?! She’s here in church, isn’t she? You judgmental JERK!”

And it’s surprising how the women who come to her defense the most are…. married women, most of whom are also mothers. Housewives, soccer moms, career women, wealthy women, working class women. These are not irresponsible idiotic women. By all appearances they have successful lives and happy marriages and families. You would think they would be the first to condemn and judge. They don’t. They all circle the wagons around the single mom and insist that no one, especially not some man, express any evaluation of how Sally Singlemom got to where she is. No, what she needs is prayer, love and support, not a talking-to.

Why do the women do this? I’ll posit that most of these women who spring to Singlemom’s defense did some of the things singlemom did. They had premarital sex. They slutted it up. They might even have secret abortions they regret, and wish they had carried their children to term and at least given them up for adoption. They were subjected to the sting of a breakup, a pregnancy, a miscarriage, an abortion, STDs, being used as semen receptacles. They remember all too well the pain and stigma of judgment from their fathers. Wearing a symbolic scarlet S. “There but for the grace of God go I”, those women say silently; and they don’t want to watch another girl go through it.

But she will learn nothing from the ordeal unless someone mixes instruction and evaluation and, yes, JUDGMENT, with that love.

Suppose a single mother walked into a church with a baby and a gun, and stated that if the church would not support her without conditions, she would shoot the baby in the head. Crazy stuff, right? Some men and women would tell her anything in order to get that gun and child away from her, then call the cops. I mean, she held her own child as a hostage, right?

But if she walked into a women’s Bible study some months earlier, and mused that she’s pregnant but “not sure what to do”, what would have happened? Unconditional support, and “don’t judge her”…because otherwise, she might not “choose life”. Is this not a subtler form of the same thing as the crazy-woman-with-a-baby-and-a-gun scenario above?

“Give me what I want, or I will harm this other person, or allow them to be harmed” is called hostage taking.. But it is also a way that many single women with children get what they want, and except in the most overt cases, it iworks and is legal.

@ Rollo
It’s not so how hard to understand what Pastor Driscoll is doing there if you understand a little bit about him. His supposedly good Christian wife admitted to him after a number of years (during which she apparently withheld sex from him) that she had gotten severely effed by another young man while she was dating Pastor Mark. I think this is why he has become obsessed with supposed sexual assault; he can’t see women as having moral agency in regard to sex without calling his own wife a slut. Hence the responsibility for all sexual conduct must rest solely with the man.

F. Roger Devlin, puts it this way: What right does a woman have to sleep with any man who takes her fancy? Women do not have the same sexual drive that men have and which men must perforce and in practise do keep under control; and thus to excuse the woman and negate her responsibility (as does Driscoll) is itself gross irresponsibility and a form or misandry – unless of course we want to suggest that women are not capable of responsibility and should thus be controlled and chaperoned at all times.

Rollo Tomassi nails it somewhat higher up this page; as he says: Fabricated single-mum pride is a buffer against acknowledging the bitter reality they are facing of financial hardship, lowered SMV, behavioral problems, social stigmatisation – problems for which no one is to blame but themselves.

The appropriate response when the women circle the wagons around Sally Singleton is for the men to stand up straight, chest out, head up and escalate it with as much piss and vinegar as they can muster. This is basic masculinity 101 (game, whatever you want to call it). Men do not submit to women. Men do not back up. Surrounded on all sides? All the better. That means you can strike in any direction and hit a legitimate target.

But if she walked into a women’s Bible study some months earlier, and mused that she’s pregnant but “not sure what to do”, what would have happened? Unconditional support, and “don’t judge her”…because otherwise, she might not “choose life”. Is this not a subtler form of the same thing as the crazy-woman-with-a-baby-and-a-gun scenario above?

There is only one proper response to this woman if she won’t move to the pro-life position.

“From Cafemom: Why do they automatically assume we all made some terrible choices?
And even if some of us did, are we not allowed to make mistakes?”

Let’s break this down a little: if people shame you for being a single mom, there are two possibilities. (1) They are right to do so and should continue to do so or (2) they are wrong to do so and therefore making a mistake when doing so, but according to Cafemom logic, people are allowed to make mistakes, so they get a pass if they continue to shame her.

I would like to think that the less forgivable mistake would be the one that brought children into the world that were statistically much less likely to succeed and statistically much more likely to have a sucky life, courtesy of the stupid mistakes made by single moms.

Without a decent amount of shame applied to those who have made stupid mistakes, how can we discourage others from making the same stupid mistakes?

Reality can suck.

Do you think any of the decent men (nerdy providers) you ignored while sexing up the alpha males of your choice (and getting pregnant in the process) didn’t experience the shame associated with failing with women? Did you not mock them or participate in creating an environment where they would be shamed?

If they and others enjoy the last laugh now and use you as a cautionary tale, how is that any worse than the shame they faced from years of rejection from women. Do you really expect them and others to let that all go, step up and pay your way and contribute in anyway to creating yet another “exception” where a woman makes terrible choices and still gets what she wants in the end?

@James

“In the UK, husbands are often portrayed as idiots in commercials.”

Same in the US and Canada. Must less so in China and Japan, although I never understood everything I saw on TV 100% in either country, so it might be a bit of a thing everywhere.

The men here, those whom feminist would call misogynists, by expecting so much more from women hold them in higher regard that Mark Driscoll or his like ever could. Mark Driscoll expects women to behave like children while the “misogynists” expect women to behave like adults. Who, in reality, dislikes women more?

There is no reason to take the kid to task. His decisions did not put him in that situation. Plus there are plenty of “bastards” out there that have 2 parents. The point is that this misaimed, indirect shaming is pointless. Just call the single mom an irresponsible slut and get it over with. Unless you want to bash her kid because you’re too afraid to blame her directly.

“he can’t see women as having moral agency in regard to sex without calling his own wife a slut. Hence the responsibility for all sexual conduct must rest solely with the man.”

Thanks for posting that information. It fills things in for me a great deal. Tragically, after all the supplication on a national scale, he’s still married to a slut.

It makes me wonder, however: If she slept with another man when they were dating, what was her sexual history before they started dating? Were they sexually active with each other while they were dating or was he be cuckolded while she slept with other men? Was the sexual withholding consistent as soon as they got married? Did she play the “he took advantage of me” card? Somehow, I think the supplication started in this relationship a long time ago.

I think if we knew more details, this particular story might make a case for why should date/marry women who have a history of whoring it up REGARDLESS OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS she spews (i.e. the devil made me do it; it was a mistake and I have been forgiven, etc.)

I keep mentioning this because it is anything but common knowledge. What percent of Christians do you know who would see FOTF, 700 Club, Driscoll, etc as furthering the feminist agenda on sexual morality?

Oh, you are entirely right, and I certainly don’t feel offended when you say so. One need only read Christianity Today to see that the feminist agenda, with the (sometimes) exception of gay marriage and abortion, has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by most evangelicals. I only mention Doug Phillips (google his name plus “feminism” and you can read a lot about him; I recommend reading his haters’ blogs) because he is an example of someone on the other side. We should remember that such pastors and leaders do exist so that we don’t become totally discouraged, but large swaths of Christians won’t follow them because the teaching is hard. It’s much easier to follow Stanton because it doesn’t require slut-shaming, which is not fun to do.

@sunshinemary, I was already aware of Driscoll’s wife’s brush with hypergamy. Freud would have a field day with him. Driscoll is the extreme end of what happens when sexually frustrated, blue-pill evangelicals’ religious expectations of women crashes headlong into the realities of hypergamy and the feminine imperative.

@22to28, I think the element of shame that single moms love to wail about is far more overblown by them when you consider how many social resources they have for cheering on their empowerment and pride.

That said, overt shame is probably the least of their concerns when you consider that for every guy who’d voice his opinion about it, there are 20 more who would indifferently pass her up as a marriageable option (too much work, too much baggage, too much self-importance, lower SMV, etc.). More men than not will just down-vote her status by not considering her as a romantic partner. It’s not the dearth of real men single mommies fear, it’s the precognition that she’ll be 45 y.o. and an unmarriable empty-nester in the not so far future.

1) The Stage I Married Woman. She never gave herself permission to work, or she felt “My husband won’t let me”. Psychologically, she was a No-Option woman.

2) The Three-Options Woman with a Poor Marriage. [The three options are: 1) Work full time; 2) Mother full time; 3) Some combination of working and mothering.] She remained married, but unhappily, often to avoid having to work.

3) The Single Mother Married to the Government. The government played substitute husband, providing her with three options but only if she remained at a subsistence level.

4) The Stage I Single Working Woman. This woman worked to prevent herself or her family from starving. If she had children from a previous relationship, she usually did not receive child support.

5) The Stage II Single Working Woman. She was neither supported by a man nor supporting a man. If she had children from a previous relationship, she was likely to be in Stage II only if she received child support.

6) The Have-It-All-Woman. This woman was married to a man who provided an economic safety net (a financial womb) from which she could choose among her three options. The Have-It-All woman was happily married. This created a class of people who had never before existed. In a sense, the Have-It-All woman was the ‘New Royalty’. Virtually no man was in the equivalent position.

The political genius of the feminist movement was its intuitive sense that it could appeal to all six classes only by emphasizing expansion of rights and avoiding expansion of responsibilities.

– Warren Farrell, from Chapter 2, entitled “Stage I to Stage II: How Successful Men Freed Women (But Forgot to Free Themselves)”, in The Myth of Male Power.

“Feminism can be simplified as a political process or power play with two basic objectives: of eliminating social controls over women, while increasing social controls over men.”
– Richard Kroeger

I only mention Doug Phillips (google his name plus “feminism” and you can read a lot about him; I recommend reading his haters’ blogs) because he is an example of someone on the other side. We should remember that such pastors and leaders do exist so that we don’t become totally discouraged, but large swaths of Christians won’t follow them because the teaching is hard. It’s much easier to follow Stanton because it doesn’t require slut-shaming, which is not fun to do.

You mentioned Vision Forum in a previous comment, so I took a quick look. They do seem to be pushing the biblical model of the family. I didn’t read much but I didn’t see them turning scripture upside down as I’ve shown is so incredibly common, and that is a very positive thing; they are addressing the issue without inverting the meaning of the scripture. They are willing to say that husbands are the biblical head of the household, etc. and I didn’t see them turning this into wifely headship.

However, what struck me is the paucity of confronting the issue of divorce. One can say that the husband is the rightful leader of the family, but it doesn’t pose much threat to feminist Christianity so long as you ignore the detonator the wife is holding. The biblical family is crashing down all around us, and divorce is fundamental to all of the issues we are seeing: fatherless children, men being unwilling to marry, wives dominating their husbands, etc. Talking about men being the leaders of the family without addressing the tools of rampant and open rebellion of wives is a prescription for generations of failure and misery. But when I do a google search of the site for the word divorce, it comes back with only 16 articles over the last ten years (and nearly all quite old). Contrast this with the word “military” which returns 318 articles. Moreover, many of the articles mentioning divorce only mention it incidentally (this is ok, but it inflates the numbers). I haven’t read all of the articles, but only one really took a bold stance taking women to task (way back in 2004). This isn’t surprising given that Christian men are typically terrified of holding women accountable (as we have discussed here at great depth). However, that one article is as I said quite good.

Don’t get me wrong. I see them as nothing like the Stanton’s, Mohlers, and Kendricks of the world. They aren’t turning the biblical message upside down, and they are actively engaging in the discussion. This is a huge difference. Still, they are as you mention on the fringes, and even here appear very timid when it comes to truly holding women accountable. Their greatest courage (that I have seen at least) appears to be the willingness to reprint an article a woman wrote elsewhere.

Anonymous Reader:Suppose a single mother walked into a church with a baby and a gun, and stated that if the church would not support her without conditions, she would shoot the baby in the head. Crazy stuff, right? Some men and women would tell her anything in order to get that gun and child away from her, then call the cops. I mean, she held her own child as a hostage, right?

But if she walked into a women’s Bible study some months earlier, and mused that she’s pregnant but “not sure what to do”, what would have happened? Unconditional support, and “don’t judge her”…because otherwise, she might not “choose life”. Is this not a subtler form of the same thing as the crazy-woman-with-a-baby-and-a-gun scenario above?

“Give me what I want, or I will harm this other person, or allow them to be harmed” is called hostage taking.. But it is also a way that many single women with children get what they want, and except in the most overt cases, it iworks and is legal.

So what does that make the rest of us?

That’s powerful stuff. Abortion as hostage taking is a theme worth exploring in its own right.

Zippy,
I think Anonymous Reader is most assuredly close to the mark.
Because the Church (speaking for at least 90% of it) is totally unwilling to take the traditionally male solution to the abortion problem, it is stuck with the female solution. The female solution—coddling unwed mothers in the hope that they won’t murder their offspring—is incredibly vulnerable to this sort of incessant demands for Danegeld.
The male solution to the problem would be to agitate, violently if necessary, to make the practice illegal and to use guns and cages to enforce it. It would not tolerate being finessed by the Republicans and opposed by the Democrats. But such a solution is nearly unspeakable in today’s climate, even though it would almost certainly save nearly 1 million lives per year.
How’s that female-oriented solution to the abortion problem working out for you Churchians?

Regarding Vision Forum – I don’t mean to imply that they are able to be the equivalent of something as big as FotF. Surely we need to point out the many errors of the big name Christian organizations; in no way do I dispute that at all. (But do read this artcle: and scroll down to the subheading “Why Christians Are Faltering in this Debate”. I think Vision Forum Ministries gets it to some degree.) Divorce is rare among such families; it’s highly frowned upon. But I think such people would be open to learning more about these issues if there was a place they felt comfortable doing so.

@ Dalrock
Have you ever considered putting a “Start Here” tab at the top of your blog that has maybe your ten most foundational posts that summarize your main points and maybe (I know this is an iffy request) without the comment threads attached? The reason I ask is because I would like to point toward it people who have no idea about the manosphere, who have no idea about the feministic assumptions inherent in many of the arguments of people like Stanton and Driscoll, and who don’t really understand about the divorce issues discussed here because they themselves might never face it. What I’m doing now is saying to people that I’m trying to explain all this to Just go read this blog called Dalrock but that isn’t working very well because it’s hard to enter this site at some random point and understand what’s going on…and some of these people are women, and they read a little bit into the comment threads, get the shock of their lives, and leave never to return.

I can’t post a comment on Ladies Against Feminism linking to UMan and explaining how these guys are really doing the Lord’s work by taking the Dirty-and-Thirty girls out of the marriage market; I’d be banned for life. I could link to a “best of” tab here and maybe get it through. Someone who reads it might show it to her husband. He might think to show it to his buddy at work…and this is how it spreads. Big Media (including Christian Big Media) is never going to give us a platform to speak from; we spread it this way, and either the tide slowly begins to turn against feministic divorce laws (a subject about which I know a little something myself), or we die and the Lord tells us, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”

Maybe this is a stupid suggestion. But if you had such a tab, I would use it liberally.

His supposedly good Christian wife admitted to him after a number of years (during which she apparently withheld sex from him) that she had gotten severely effed by another young man while she was dating Pastor Mark.

Where might we fight some hard evidence to nail this down? It would go a long way toward exposing the little “secrets” behind the closed doors of church men who are feminists in lamb’s clothing.

I am amazed. Mark Driscoll used to be so unbelievably strong in his faith and in his ministry and then this vitriol against the men he is supposed to be building up descends. Satan knew his man and knew exactly how to bring him to his knees. This is why Game has to be addressed in church, if it’s not, Satan and his demonic hordes have the most powerful weapon they will ever need besides pride.

“Mark Driscoll needs to crawl in a hole and die. I am amazed at how a man who can preacher very effectively on many topics is so completely neutered in his faith due to feminism. It’s absolutely mind boggling.’

He said it himself, if you are screwed up on this point you fall down on everything else. He’s leading by example. Hey Mark, look in the mirror.

@ Miserman
Mark and Grace Driscoll wrote a book last year called “Real Marriage.” He wrote:

One night…I had a dream in which I saw some things that shook me to my core. I saw in painful detail Grace sinning sexually during a senior trip she took after high school when we had just started dating. It was like watching a film–something I cannot really explain but the kind of revelation I sometimes receive. I awoke, threw up, and spent the rest of the night sitting on our couch, praying, hoping it was untrue…I asked her if it was true, fearing the answer. Yes, she confessed, it was. Grace started weeping and trying to apologize for lying to me…Had I known about this sin, I would not have married her. But God told me to marry Grace, I loved her, I had married her as a Christian, we were pregnant, and I was a pastor with a church plant filled with young people who were depending on me. (11-12)

On another page he writes about her withholding:

I had a church filled with single young women who were asking me how they could stop being sexually ravenous and wait for a Christian husband, then I’d go home to a wife whom I was not sexually enjoying….The truth was I needed to have more frequent sex with my wife, and we needed to discuss how that could happen

I don’t know, but doesn’t this kind of look like Mrs. Driscoll is a bit of an alpha widow?
And of course, he needs to see her as a good girl, so there is a chapter about how some of her sexual experiences before him were actually sexual assault. He seems to be rationalizing away her sin. In that context, we can understand how his “How dare you” rant came about.

@ Joseph
I know what you mean. Pastor Driscoll was actual an early influence in my Christian life in terms of figuring out the complementarity issue. I’m sad that he really doesn’t get it. But maybe he will get it someday. He is a good speaker and would be an excellent red pill dispensary.

Good idea on the start here button SSM. I think if I did it I would create a spin off blog space just for that. I’m not sure when I might have the time to do that though. It would be similar to a book or ebook I think.

And of course, he needs to see her as a good girl, so there is a chapter about how some of her sexual experiences before him were actually sexual assault. He seems to be rationalizing away her sin. In that context, we can understand how his “How dare you” rant came about.

I had heard that his wife was sexually abused before their marriage. That term, abuse, has been ‘abused’ itself a lot these days. Is this really abuse they are talking about with regards to his wife, or just after the fact regret?

Had I known about this sin, I would not have married her. But God told me to marry Grace, I loved her, I had married her as a Christian, we were pregnant, and I was a pastor with a church plant filled with young people who were depending on me. – Mark Driscoll

Is Mark saying that God told him to deliberately marry a woman who he would not have married otherwise? Is he insinuating that God, knowing what Grace had done, told him to marry her anyway? It sounds like he is hiding behind God. I mean, couldn’t he have divorced for the cause of fornication (sexual immorality)? Especially if he were a virgin before the honeymoon? And especially because she had failed to disclose her sin before they walked the aisle, essentially making her both an adulteress and a liar? Imagine if the places had been reversed. But according to him, God wanted him to marry her, which sounds like “I knew, deep down, that something was not right about her, but I wanted her anyway.”

It sounds like Mark is making God out to be the guilty one to cover for his wife’s guilt. Talk about cursing Christ to protect Judas.

Makes me think of the following …

A bishop then must be blameless … not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. – 1 Timothy 3:2, 6 NKJV (emphasis mine)

I don’t want to judge Mark, but grief, by his own words, he sounds like he basically chose his wife based on emotions and not grounded biblical standards. That’s something an immature adolescent would do, not someone who is ready to run a church.

It amazes me that so many married mothers wish to stick up for the “heroic” single mothers.

Why?

These married mothers intend to divorce the father when it becomes financially attractive to do so. It is obvious they would want the status of single mothers to remain high, as they soon wish to join their ranks.

“As domestic violence is a crime against the State no appearance by the “victim” before a magistrate or district attorney is required to file charges. Nowhere is there any requirement that the “victim” in domestic violence cases take an oath, or affirm her statements are true.”

“This perversion of the justice system is now common knowledge among legal practitioners. Thomas Kasper recently described in the Illinois Bar Journal how false accusations readily “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.” Bar associations and even courts themselves sponsor divorce seminars counseling mothers on how to fabricate abuse accusations. “The number of women attending the seminars who smugly — indeed boastfully — announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!” astonished Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal. “To add amazement to my astonishment, the lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants.” The UMKC Law Review reports a survey of judges and attorneys found complaints of disregard for due process and allegations of domestic violence used as a “litigation strategy.”

I see single mothers who’ve conceived a child with a man they weren’t married to, as short-sighted, stupid and irresponsible.
The divorce single mothers may have had a great marriage at the time they conceived, but that doesn’t change the fact that both of them are woman with child.

Like Rollo said, single mothers don’t get shamed as much as they’d like to believe.
Even people who’ve grew up having a problem with it and continue to, are all smiles infront of the future mother and family members.

Problem with some single mother is that they get so many resources that having another child doesn’t look so bad.
I’m never shocked to hear of a single mother pregnant with another child, she’s been taken care of by everyone around her so the initial fear she had when she first got pregnant is gone.

There’s was a news story about a mother and her 12 kids living in a motel, where all she did was complain and demand help.

Married women must always rally around the heroic single mothers because deep down that is the preferred method of life; unfettered freedom from consequences and a total assumption of responsbilities onto a distant and faceless thing (a human male).

Plus, we all know that deep down they have to make sure this setup is socially acceptable in the future for thier daughters, lord knows they don’t give a fuck about their sons (if they didn’t abort the big bad white rapist growing in her that is) otherwise no grandchildren!!!!

” Second, the hysteria over domestic violence is largely geared toward one aim: removing children from their fathers. Donna Laframboise [formerly] of the National Post investigated battered women’s shelters in the US and Canada and concluded they constituted one stop divorce shops whose primary purpose was not to shelter abused women but to promote divorce. These shelters, many of which are federally funded, issue affidavits against fathers sight-unseen that are accepted without any corroborating evidence by judges eager (for their own bureaucratic reasons) to justify restraining orders against fathers and the removal of their children. Feminists themselves contend that most domestic violence takes place within the context of “custody battles.” “All of this domestic violence industry is about trying to take children away from their fathers,” writes Irish Times columnist John Waters, who predicts: “When they’ve taken away the fathers, they’ll take away the mothers.”

2004 David Grey writes:
“The hysterical, moral high ground claimed for these grotesque acts of trampling on our civil liberties are that we are in the middle of an epidemic of male- and father-perpetrated abuse based on the patriarchy, and that all fathers are child abusers and pedophiles. Therefore, the general population must be protected from them at any cost. Because their propaganda says all patriarchal, heterosexual men are batterers, then they are pariahs who are beyond the pale and do not deserve legal rights.

Should our civilization somehow survive, it will truly astound historians in years hence that the eradication of the rule of law, the heterosexual family unit, and the elimination of the legal rights of heterosexual men and fathers was legislatively achieved by politicians who are charged with upholding the very laws they were charged to uphold. Incredibly, these politicians were themselves mostly heterosexual men and fathers pursuing the gay/lesbian vote and the vote of women with “self esteem” issues and incapable of stable relationships.”

Not really, we look back upon the western empire as some sort of great triumph that died in a fiery cataclysm. Want to see America in 50 years? Look at western empire around 300ad. We take for granted that western empire “fell” and did not fade away, future generations will treat this period with a similar amount of Superficiality.

“Men are not stupid. They have learned that when they are patriotic and join the military, the chances are better than 50% that they will end up divorced and come home to a huge child support debt and perhaps even a jail cell on criminal nonsupport charges…
Consider the advantages of marrying and divorcing a military man. If a woman is married to a military man for merely one day, she can collect up to half his pension if she divorces him. And there is no limitation on how many times a woman can do this.

Secondly, the best time to divorce a man is when he cannot defend himself because he is on the other side of the world. It is quite simple to seize the family, get a hefty (temporary) support order, and move on. That’s the beauty of no-fault divorce. The wife does what she wants while the husband pays the costs and assumes the fault by default…
There is no federal requirement that support orders must be based on military pay, and no guarantee a modification will be granted. Many reservists have only 72 hours to report for duty — not enough time to even get the attention of system that generally refuses to treat men fairly in the first place.

This delivers military men directly into the clutches of criminal federal and state child support laws. If a man becomes either $5,000 or six months (FILO basis of accrual) in support arrears, he becomes a felon. He then automatically loses his passport, driver’s license, business license, professional licenses, and vehicle licenses. If convicted, he loses his right to vote in most states.

my church defuneded my bible studey study greta books for men club so as to fund the “Repentant Sisterhood of the Sore Buttholez in Search of Beta Providers to Support Our Bastard Kidz” Bible study club zlozozozozo

this is they’re prayer:

THE PRAYER OF THE REPENTANT SISTERHOOD OF DA SORE BUTTHOLEZ lzozoz

ten alphas pumped and dumped me
so i considred myself a ten
told all the betas “let’s wait and see,”
and now i am a single old dried up hen.
empowered today with my haughty blogs
calling on men to man up everywhere
where cocks once penetratd my hole for logs
jesus now forgives me via my prayer
please jesus please heal my sore butthole
i repent so send a beta provider my way
a good manned-up man with a good soul
the ones i ignored back in the day
but now i desrve me a nice nice moneyed guy
to pay for dates while i make him wait ’til i die.

to make him pay for what i gave away for free
back when i was younger hotter tighter
no longer can he butthext the reformed me
like they did when i was fifty pounds lighter.

“These shelters, many of which are federally funded, issue affidavits against fathers sight-unseen that are accepted without any corroborating evidence by judges eager (for their own bureaucratic reasons) to justify restraining orders against fathers and the removal of their children.”

Been there done that, didn’t work on me though, but boy do my reaction to people who call/ask for support for all those abused wymyn ever get the shock of their lives.

Thanks Paul.
I’ve installed a dedicated call blocking system and am never in hearing of the ringer,I take calls by checking for messages twice a day,and will not open my door for a stranger, of let a woman into my home.
Been reading on the equal justice site for hours now tonight,and it just gets worse.
A man would have to be stupidly foolhardy to be married or cohabitation in this legal (terroristic) climate.
Not an activist,I’ve seen what happens to those who buck the system.
It surely appears to be a deliberate and focused attack upon decent folk at large.
What’s most appalling is that women have bought into these lies and refuse to see the male perspective.
Even my 69 year old mother has threatened to file a false DV charge against me,after witnessing how devastating the first one was.
This is unmitigated unjust power,and should be fought most severely.(to the utmost)

Every pastor that I have talked with view the pregnant single mother as a “victim” who was “deceived” by a “bad man” and is a “hero” because she is “feels sorry” and wont abort the child.

Btw, this is the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th time.
They simply wont acknowledge that the woman has corrupt morals and is attempting to use sex / child as a means to trap a man / trick a man to taking care of her and her rug rats ( I have seriously laid into them with scripture and hard lessons in simple consequences).

The children are the innocent victims – not the mother.
In review of the scripture the older chaste women are to instruct younger women to do the same- female shame is a powerful instructor when it is used for the right reason.

The foundation of Christian living that I have observed in Charles Stanley’s sermons is PRAYER.

Prayer the right way. He could espouse in great detail about many varying topics but his focus seems to me to be about developing a strong attachment to the notion of a relationship with God. One requires a deep awareness of the self, an honesty, a conscience. Discipline, patience and humility are also involved.

Simply attending church in order to ‘fill out the dance card’ is meaningless if it doesn’t leave one with a strong desire to pray, the right way.

Take Driscoll’s video for example. I don’t know him nor do I assume to speak for him. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he deserves respect. Assuming he prayed prior to developing his message and in his heart felt he was right in pushing his message, was his prayer true? Depends on the purpose of the message. He may have deep Freudian denial/blame issues (which I tend to dismiss since psychoanalysis is wrought with feminist moral relativism) or he may be truly angry at the actions and behaviors of males who need a ‘kick in the pants’ so to speak. But if he prayed and came out of it with a desire to spread a message of truth according to Biblical principles (in this case, forgiveness and humility to name a couple), then he should have somewhere stated, in the least, that the sinner of the flesh takes many forms and that fornication leads to bad consequences.

@Lovekraft – prayer is important. So are the holy scriptures.
If one is going to “teach” others in the name of G_D then they are held accountable for others “blood life” as well as their own and then some – consider Mark 9:42 & Ez 13 & 33.

To hold men accountable to a higher standard then women is non-scriptural and destructive.
The soul that sin shall die (relationship with G_D ) and their blood is required. This applies to both both men & women.
If you want to see how men/women/children/marriage interact – take a hard look at a orthodox Jewish family. Then read the apostles Pauls writing regarding the relationship and marriage structure – Driscoll has clearly departed from the scriptures in both OT/NT despite “praying”.

If the apostle Paul today was around – the Christian pastors pressured by women would attack him. (Driscoll have clearly departed from the scriptures and would be leading the charge).

Driscoll might have “prayed” and proceeded to teach what he heard – but it is quite obvious who he heard from. It was not the Holy Spirit who always shows insight into Christ & obedience to G_D despite genders.
What Driscoll is teaching and encouraging other to worship is the spirit of Tammuz & Jezebel.
Time to wake up.

Driscoll would empty 3/4 of his congregation if he taught what Paul / Peter instructions to women/wives using that cover of shame and force acting to guilt the listeners and then passing the offering plate – what a sham !!!
That video is a textbook example of a false prophet/teacher that Christ & the apostles warned about – out of context condemnation and then guilt/ force a tithe to penance.

“He seems to be rationalizing away her sin. In that context, we can understand how his “How dare you” rant came about.”

Exactly, he is rationalizing female sin while slamming the guy for even thinking of having a sex drive. I don’t condone fornication in any sense, but Driscoll needs to wake the F#$% up and realize that women have much more power in a relationship that a guy does now. He is leading the men of his congregation like sheep to the slaughter. Hypergamy is one hungry beast.

Driscoll and others win $$ both ways – he shames men into tithing and women will gladly tithe because he is singing their feminine tune – it is quite subtle ( modern day “penance” ). He is in blind deception.

He will be judged for his words since he readily admitted to allowing fornicators “coming here for years” to pollute the assembly of the saints (he will accept their money and turns a blind eye to open sin – direct contradiction to 1 Cor 5-7). Prayer & G_Dly teaching brings repentance through the Holy Spirit not play acting.

I was particularily interested in Farm Boy’s reference to Bayes Law, for it was the work of the Rev’d Bayes. On the previous thread Dalrock and I touched upon the Rev’d Malthus. It is remarkable how two members of the cloth (and I guess there are others) – English, of course – should each have had such profound and lasting effects in respectively Statistics and Economics. I sometimes think I should (like the pair of them) have been born in the eighteenth century – though I feel compelled to point out that the Rev’d Bayes house -still standing – is only a couple of streets away from me, indeed I have frequently frequented and stayed there – as it was for some years owned by a friend of mine – wonderful house it is too, and thus almost as close as I can get to the eighteenth century, although I must also mention that a month ago I visited the (only surviving) home of your Benjamin Franklin in London – just off Charing Cross – which remains unchanged in decor since Franklin left in 1775.

@Michael Singer
The Mark Driscoll rant is taken from his sermon on I and II Peter called ‘Marriage and Men’ The sermons are about 75 minutes so unless you have a lot of time, I would not recommend watchig the whole sermon, but I found it instructive to listen to and compare and contrast his opening prayers before the sermons ‘Marriage and Men’ and ‘Marriage and Women’. He asks for wisdom to interpret the Word for women but for courage to say what he has to say to the men. surely a Biblical preacher needs wisdom to interpret no matter who his target audience is?

@William
I know that I have said this before and I will probably say it again, but much of the problems in our society today are caused by trying to shelter people from the consequences of the bad decisions they make. Elementary psychology teaches that reward reinforces behaviour and punishment reinfoces avoidance of the behaviour that caused the punishment. We have become too concerned with being accepting of people as they are in the church, instead of challenging unacceptable beaviour like Jesus and the Rich Young Man who went away sad because he was not prepared to meet Jesus’ demands. We seem to have forgotten that we are called to teach and admonish each other, and to encourage each other to holiness. I do not understand the social security system in the US, but here in the UK, a young girl having a child can jump the waiting list for social (cheap) housing ahead of a young couple who want to wait until they have a house into which they can bring a child.

And now even the churches are at it. The MEthodsist Church is preparing a resource on cohabitiation for young Methodists, who a few years ago were reported to consider that cohabitation was both right and sensible. Maybe Don MacLean was a prophet when he wrote, “The three men I admired most
The Father, son and Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died.”

I know you are aware of this, but women (largely) cannot understand the facts presented on this page. It is not in their make-up. A woman is a creature of the heart. She is led around, from her first breath to her last, by her feelings. As such her modus operandi is to live in the Land of the Happy Bubble. All other considerations, even if her children live or die (see abortion), are secondary to her Prime Directive. The Happy Bubble shall be neither pierced nor perturbed.

This is the type of creature you are attempting to reason with. She is impervious to reasoning, by Design.

In this situation, the best strategies are either avoid (MGTOW-route) or continuously manipulate her feelings (PUA-route), or some blend of the two (e.g., outwardly directed smiles and pleasantries, but avoid her like one would a street panhandler).

Days of Broken Arrows is completely right in stating that unmarried with children, divorced with children, and widowed with children are three separate things. The only situation that should not bring shame upon the woman is, naturally, being widowed. In each case, however, it is SELFISH to deny a child a father figure. Parenthood is a big freakin’ deal and a never-ending job. Its not one to be taken lightly, and anyone doing it well (single or not) is to be commended. But to glorify EXCLUSION of one parent over another without justification is wrong. It is a sign of the rot of our social structure that families can no longer stay together half of the time.

I suspect the unwillingness to separate the groups is simple ignorance of what marriage and children really mean.

@ UK Fred – Thank you for the recommendation for Driscoll regarding the series. I have listened to it and have found it lacking in scriptural integrity and is easily, easily refutable ( I could come up with pages on Driscolls heretical inconsistenties).

As mentioned in a previous thread – he readily admitted to allowing fornicators “coming here for years”, the pawing, and other behaviors to pollute the assembly of the saints.

Any pastor / teacher proclaiming G_ds word is held accountable. That cannot be denied.
Any pastor who knows that behavior is occurring in his congregation and allows it to occur for years is while demanding /collecting offerings from his followers is knowingly deceiving them.

I suggest you read the parable of the unjust steward in Luke 16:1-8 and then compare it against Pauls writings in 1 Cor 5-6 and many others where he delivers the member to Satan for the destruction of his flesh that his spirit may be saved for the known sin.
Btw, Paul then demanded a collection from the church of Cornith them after he instructed them.

Driscoll has a appearance of and a “ring” of truth but is far from it. It is the intentional twisting of the scriptures.
Pastors like him charge couples money for those course and then yell at them.

He would never teach wives to be submissive, obedient, fearing, honoring to a Sunday morning congregations- Never.
He doesn’t have the balls nor the insight to teach the truth but he is a typical greedy “Balam” and his character is obvious.

It is irrelevant whether women can understand their choices or not, it only matters that they are held responsible. Even if I believed as you do that women lack agency, whch I don’t, they must be dragged, kicking and screming if necessary, into adulthood.

Ether that or they must give up the right to vote, the right to be custodian to children, the right to work, and the right to control their own procreation.

Don’t hold your breath on the second one happening first. If they want to be equal, it’s all or nothing now.

Re: B. Franklin
Shortly after the end of what we call the “French and Indian War” B.F. exchanged a series of very frank letters with some of his friends in London. They were, for the most part, the most progressive and liberty-minded men in the UK. In the letters he wrote Franklin took the unprecedented step, for him, of saying exactly what he thought. He said, more or less, that from now on, the Americans who really matter will be more than happy to be British but for a number of solid reasons they will regard themselves, and expect to be treated, as at least the equal of any other group in the Empire. He pointed out that they ALL owned their own land; often quite a lot of it, they were either rich or expected to be, they had had their own fully functioning Parliaments for a hundred years, and a good few of them owned Slaves – over whom they had absolute power. (Let that sink in for a while).
He was saying, in effect, that the relationship between America and the UK was not going to be determined by law and custom,or even right or wrong, but by the fact that America heading strongly in one direction and the only choices were to accommodate that or endure a seperation.
He managed to convince no one with this argument so he went back to his usual mendacity. From the mid 1760s on, guys like him and G. Washington did everything they could to position themselves for the inevitable break-up and only pretended to care for reconciliation.
Regards.

Btw, this is at the deepest end of the pool and was even a mystery to Paul.
There are many things that are in the scripture that are symbolic, signs, and are of the utmost spiritual significance. Here are in some examples what baptism, laying on of hands, anointing with oil etc.. Baptism has no “physical” significance nor does the laying on of hands, nor does anointing with etc…

A woman’s head covering in first Corinthians 11 is such an example. It is a symbol, a sign, and of the utmost spiritual significance. It is not just to have her head covered to show dominance or spirituality ( if spirituality could be had so easily)

Quick review of Jewish religious practices. Both men and women wore head coverings.
This is clearly seen in the old testament and in the Torah and Levitical law. There are many other examples but I’ll spare going into them.

Having a man’s head uncovered lifting holy hands with something completely new to Jews and Gentiles and proselytes. Nobody understands what a radical idea or concept this ( one of the reasons why the Pharisees and other religious leaders wanted to kill Paul).

This is a glorious new freedom that is part of the new covenant which has the uncovering of a man’s head is a very very big deal – THIS IS MAJOR.

This has enormous spiritual significance/sign/symbol and is a major spiritual revelation.
The same goes for woman’s head covering. It signifies something/symbol, sign, and very significant.

Just as Christ is the glory of the Father the man is the glory of Christ woman is the glory of man.
Study the Scriptures the glory is always covered, protected, and guarded.
Quick question do you think the disciple draws his strength (lean) from Christ or does Christ lean/draw his strength from the disciple ? That is correct the disciple leans (ezer/ draws strength) from Christ and is dependent / protected by him.

A woman’s obedience/submission/head covering/modest behavior is a sign/symbol just as the church is sign to the world that the church is both submissive and obedient to Christ.
A man’s uncovered head is a sign to the world that Christ is the head of the church and through Christ we have access or an open heaven to the Father through Christ by remaining, obedient, submissive to Him.

Having a obedient, submissive, modest, reverent wife any sacrificing husband that is a spiritual model of Christ in the church that is supported by an incredible amount of Old Testament and New Testament examples – it all snaps into place and leaves very little room for argument from either men or women.

I have no idea whether B.Franklin was or was not mendacious. I am aware of the war to which you refer and the provision of troops by the British – you were expected to pay but then a top european army was surely preferable to a rag-tag militia – however I do not wish to exacerbate the usual animosity between our two countries. What fascinated me about Franklin was that he made his home in London for nearly twenty years, and thus escaped from his wife (to whom he was not legally married) and his illegitimate son (a Governor of New Jersey) but whether living in London or Philadelphia (where by chance I have had the pleasure of visiting Independence Hall) he lived very close to the river. Of course he was also in London in the Seventeen Thirties. I suppose he was a Deist and we have gone way off topic.

Regarding holding women responsible for their actions, I agree. But our social institutions have to enforce that responsibility. The courts, the police, the legislatures, the church, the media, etc have to come down, hard, on women’s anti-social transgressions.

But these institutions now refuse to carry out their traditional role. In fact, these same institutions now give women License. Legal Rights without Responsibilties. Women, of course, abuse their new found power to its limit (like 5 year old children would).

In that situation it is best, as a survival precaution, for men to not enter into a legal relationship with women anymore. The optimal strategy is avoidance or gaming.

Opus
Rather than animosity, I think BF was trying to describe how the two sides of the pond were becoming too much a-like. My father and his brother went thru WW2 completely meshed in with British forces and won British military decorations of which they were immensely proud.
Franklin was not an orthodox believer but the mileau of his country-men was strongly Puritan. So many things were simply assumed about Morality, apart from sectarianism.
Franklin had a son out of wedlock with one woman whom he raised in the context of a marriage to another.
Divorce was very difficult to obtain in those days but crossing an ocean on some pretext was not. Communications were virtually non-existent over long distances. Lots of people came to a new country, changed their names, and that was that.

Do you not all see
That the feminist movement
Was created by the central bankers
To transfer welath and assets from moral men
to the immoralz Bernannke elite

so many of you act as if
“oh well it just is the way things are oopszzz.”
but a very conscious consistent efforts was made to
transform
and debuach
and desoul
every institution
and convert them all
to orififces
stransfering wealth and powerz from menz to da beernke elitez zlzoozozooz

OpusWhat fascinated me about Franklin was that he made his home in London for nearly twenty years, and thus escaped from his wife (to whom he was not legally married) and his illegitimate son (a Governor of New Jersey) but whether living in London or Philadelphia (where by chance I have had the pleasure of visiting Independence Hall) he lived very close to the river.

I wonder where he resided in Paris, during the war, when he was part of the delegation?
There is a painting of him circa that time with a fur hat, something I am certain was done purely for effect. And likely it did have the desired effect, Franklin was popular with some women in the king of France’s court. But did he live anywhere near the Seine?

i am an expertz in marriagez and relationshipz as i lead a bible study gorup even though it recently got defundewd

my church defuneded my bible studey study greta books for men club so as to fund the “Repentant Sisterhood of the Sore Buttholez in Search of Beta Providers to Support Our Bastard Kidz” Bible study club zlozozozozo

this is they’re prayer:

THE PRAYER OF THE REPENTANT SISTERHOOD OF DA SORE BUTTHOLEZ lzozoz

ten alphas pumped and dumped me
so i considred myself a ten
told all the betas “let’s wait and see,”
and now i am a single old dried up hen.
empowered today with my haughty blogs
calling on men to man up everywhere
where cocks once penetratd my hole for logs
jesus now forgives me via my prayer
please jesus please heal my sore butthole
i repent so send a beta provider my way
a good manned-up man with a good soul
the ones i ignored back in the day
but now i desrve me a nice nice moneyed guy
to pay for dates while i make him wait ’til i die.

to make him pay for what i gave away for free
back when i was younger hotter tighter
no longer can he butthext the reformed me
like they did when i was fifty pounds lighter.

Ben Franklin wearing furry “Indian Frontier” hats around Paris was somewhat more than 100% b.s. BF was by then in actual fact a very wealthy, totally citified, head of his own media empire.
The American diplomatic presence in Paris was located well away from the Seine River when Franklin was there. That was partly a matter of finding lower rents and finding more privacy.
As regarding BF and the famously receptive women of the French Court – no one really knows. Those people had standards, moral or not, but nonetheless robust enough such they did not kiss and tell. much less run to the tabloids. IOWs, nothing has survived in writting..

What struck me – concerning B.F.’s London residence – was that it is situated more or less equidistantly from – to the east – the City of London (which he knew from his time there in the 1730s when he worked as a Printer somewhere near St Paul’s and Moorgate – which was where John Milton was brought up and where John Keats was born) that is to say near the sources of money; and to the south west, the Palace of Westminster where the Court and Parliament were situate. Travel by river-boat would I suppose be the preferred and more sensible method of transportation. The present American Embassy – by-the-way – is situate (as was its predecessor which was near The Regent’s Park) somewhat further away from The Thames – at Grosvenor Square. He was brought up near water, lived (as I said) near the river in Philadelphia – perhaps that was inevitable but seems to me to be curious.

@Micheal Singer
“A man’s uncovered head is a sign to the world that Christ is the head of the church and through Christ we have access or an open heaven to the Father through Christ by remaining, obedient, submissive to Him.”

I’m not betting on a single year. But let’s say raw terror keeps the plates spinning. How would we expect things to look a mere TWELVE years from now?

Since 2000, the number of Americans on food stamps has risen and risen, only declining in 2007 by less than 4%, before resuming the climb. From around 17 million in 2000 to approximately 46 million in 2012. It’s NEVER gotten better in the last 12 years in America. Only worse and worse and worse. If food stamp usage were to increase at the same rate for the next twelve years, we would expect 75 million, or one in four Americans, to be on Food Stamps. The National Debt was 5.6 trillion BB, that is Before Bush, and is now 16.1 trillion. So we’d have to increase it a “mere” 10.5 trillion for our next twelve years, to 26.6 trillion. About 100,000 dollars for every man, woman, 80 year old man, and baby in America. Other numbers are similarly horrific.

And I’m using absolute increases, not percentage increases. Because percentage increases would obviously yield insane numbers. That probably are closer to the truth if things were somehow held together. Which they won’t be.

So yeah, not gonna be fifty years. Not gonna be twelve years either.

For people who say “it’s gonna turn around”, the Great Depression reached “peak unemployment” a mere four years after 1929 in 1933. With a smaller peak nine years after 1929, and then up from there. Labor Participation rate has been falling since 2000, and is still falling. So, Great Depression peaked in 1933. Still haven’t peaked now, twelve years on. So yeah, you people who “see the v”, there is no v. There is no u. There is no change. It just gets worse every year. And do you know why? I’ll use kiddie speak cause I’m talking to kiddies. Children, or better, cowards.

FDR crushed the incumbent in the 1932 election. The very first presidential election after the stock market crash, by the way. His campaign was filled with real crazy firebrand stuff to. This was a mere three years into the “business cycle” after the 1929 peak. Americans were going nuts a mere THREE YEARS into the collapse. We are now on year twelve, and who do we have?

Mitt Romney, born of money and political power, promising austerity and more suffering for the poor. He also has some magic plans which he refuses to talk about. They will fix everything. But don’t ask him! And Bailout Obama.

No solution will be found because no solution is being looked for. Is that so very hard to understand?

you write, “The greatest motivational factor for young men is the promise of sex, while the greatest challenge a society faces is how to productively harness the energies of young men. Those energies are powerful.”

no! men long for honor, truth, wisdom, and beauty! men long for exalted, classical story and soul! that is why men created Shakespeare and the Bible and Homer and Virgil, while women created FIFTY SHADES OF GRAY!

for you see, women see the world as one big sexy time place. that is why 80% of malls and shopping are devoted to women and their sexy time. victoria secret is for women to sex up for sexy time and tempt men. cosmo has no articles on the monetary system nor physics, but only sexy sex sex sexy sex.

then, after women spend all their time and money devoted to sexy time and sex, reading about it, shopping for it, sexifiying themselves 24/7, they then say

“men just want sex”

while men are out there reading and writing the Great Books.

and again, this is why the neocon banking cartel funded teh decontruction and debauchery of the great books and classics, as they define man’s exalted nature. and in order to control men, the neocons must destory man’s exalted, noble God and reduce all to womanly sex sex sexy time, bastardizing marriage and destroying the family, as is their goal, as outlined in the ten planks of communism.

you write, “Marriage should mean more sex than singlehood, and for me it almost certainly does.”

umm sounds like you have no game.

most women have ten-twenty partners before marriage these days, and only one after, whom they generally just ant to do missionary position with, having tired of all the freaky stuff.

so yes, thee is less sex these days after you mary a deosuled, haggard thirty year old who is “now ready for marriage,” like teh rental car with 100,000 miles on it is “now ready” to be sold to a proud owner. lzozozoz

yes!

every now and then, someone describes their own personal experience in jumping out of a ten-story high window and living!

so, now, let’s all jump!!!

(the neocon banking cartel tries to sell its debauched, desouled 32-year-old women as “good as new!” but they know, as did moses and jesus, of the wicked things debauched/desouled women are capable of–cuckholding, fornicating, transferring a man’s assets and children to the neocon corporate state, aborting 50,000,000 innocent souls and calling it a “right.” yes, women are the ideal soldiers in the neocon bnking cartel’s army of darkness, debauchery, and devastation, as the family is destroyed and man’s Natural Rights are trampled upon via the buttcocking welfare/warfare state which wages a perpetual war against truth, beauty, god, and the unborn)

“The oldest trick in the sexist book is the female need for control of children. I perceived in the sentimentality and narcissism of motherhood a threat to the objectivity that as a writer I valued so highly. But it wasn’t control of the children I was necessarily sickening for. It was something subtler – prestige, the prestige that is the mother’s reward for the work of bearing her offspring. And that prestige was my husband’s. I had given it to him or he had taken it – either way, it was what he got out of our arrangement. And the domestic work I did was in a sense at the service of that prestige, for it encompassed the menial, the trivial, the frankly boring, as though I was busily working behind the scenes to ensure the smooth running of the spectacle on stage”

If the oldest trick in the sexist book is control, jealousy is surely the second oldest. Look upon this woman’s view of man: Existing only in the areas where his opposition exists. Whatever bland contributions he may or may not grant (including raising and rearing children, supporting her working outside the home, and maintaining the household) is invisible to her. What is visible, is his Enjoyment, and sense of fulfillment, and she covets it jealously. Were he the working one her jealousy would be directed against his freedom from the very things she is angry that her ex-husband did, and worst of all he did them well, and happily.

Wat ins the lesson to gain from this? No matter what you do, no matter what you contribute, it will be dismissed in an instant by woman. What she will notice, is whether you are HAPPY about it. Ad she will bring woe to you if that happiness ins outside her control. She will jealously try to stomp out your happiness through theft, or failing that, a scorched earth policy.

…like teh rental car with 100,000 miles on it is “now ready” to be sold to a proud owner.

As well, Crazy Sally the Sassy Sales Lady is out just about everyday on the sidewalk in front of the First Church of the Good and Discount House of Trashy Women & Auto Sales haranguing possible would-be customers with insults of “These cars are way too good for a slobbering bum like you!”, “You’re such a loser, you could never get with one of these cars!”, “You could only afford a car like these in your dreams!”, and the like.

Brilliant marketing. With around 2 million women born each year, and each having approximately 2 kids, the current cost of which is almost a quarter of a million dollars each ($235K), their net uterine liability is almost a trillion dollars a year. A great deal of this is poorly or only fuzzily funded, and is thus looking for someone to take it off their hands.

…they then say … “men just want sex”

We get to hear a lot of complaints from women about men wanting ‘only one thing'; not so many from men about women wanting EVERYTHING!

However, as zed sayeth, normal male sexuality (like fatherhood) has been problematized, pathologized, criminalized, and practically mindfucked out of existence. So that’s another big bug in the marketing plan.

To bring the analogy to one that provides a bit of hope for men; what they find is that the factories have moved offshore (declining birthrates) because it is to expensive to produce vehicles here and more men are buying foreign cars because of the drastic difference in quality.

@Freebird, for the wife to get half of his retirement she has to be with him for ten years and one day of his military service. I personally saw several of my fellow soldiers get shafted on this. It was deliberate too! No kidding, I saw multiple times where the divorce was filed several days after his tenth year in service. VP Cheney came and spoke on base and someone asked him about that policy. He had no idea it existed!

Yes, a lot of guys during deployment get their bank accounts wiped clean. You would not believe the horror stories we shared with each other. Another thing that happens is women will file for divorce and child support/ child custody while he’s away because there is no way he can show up to court to dispute it. It is so insane! So incomprehensible how we allow this bullcrap to happen to our servicemembers.

I’m trying to find the article on Google but not having any luck as of yet. In Fort Hood a few years ago, a SFC killed himself when he found he would lose half of his retirement, his wife took his two kids (so he had to pay child support) and he would have to live off just a few hundred dollars a month. When I read the article I cried. I could not believe this was allowed to happen. He had survived several tours in the desert to be destroyed and killed by his wife at home.

@SSM—thanks for posting the quotes about Driscoll. My family and friends love him but I think he’s a feminist man hater

Women to avoid if you’re looking for a relationship (from Lord Valtrex’s list)

1. Daughters of single moms
2. Cutters
3. Girls with tattoos and piercings
4. Girls with eating disorders
5. Girls who have had more than 5 lovers
6. Redheads
7. Bisexuals
8. Women into traditionally male things like guitar and video games
9. women into Asian culture
10. Crybabies and victims

I would add:

–Any girl on prescription medication of any kind
–any girl who has ever been treated for any kind of addiction (alcoholism, drug addiction, shopping addiction)
–any girl who has ever done any kind of work in the sex industry, even once (stripping, porn, prostitution, nude modeling)
–any girl who tells you she is not into giving BJs
–any woman who confesses to more than 5 ONSs (the real number is a LOT higher)

Twelve Classic Bitches, Witches, and Crazy Ladies to Avoid at All Costs

[synopsized, except for the last one]

1) The Deviant – the fun, bad little girl; includes thrill whores and “pop girls”; probably gets you into trouble, roaring in and out (if you’re lucky) of your life like a hurricane.

2) The Achiever – high-powered, modern, bright, witty, and attractive; you come after her work and ambitions and feel lonely.

3) Lolita – young, just discovering her sexual power, and is getting back at Daddy by screwing you; may look up to you but isn’t able to fully appreciate you or have a serious relationship.

4) The Time Bomb – an emotionally lethal weapon that goes off with no warning; careful: she can look normal on the surface, even very sweet and cute, maybe “perfect”, at first; you’ll never be able to relax or have peace of mind.

5) The True Believer – at the cutting edge of metaphysical flooziness; is usually a cheap, fun date; comes complete with preset rules and opinions about just about everything.

6) The Man Hater – some women are just angry at all men, often with good cause; don’t even think about being the good guy who changes her mind about men.

7) The Waffler – can’t make up her mind about you or anything else; isn’t all there for you while looking for something vaguely better elsewhere.

8) The Virgin – or almost; guilt trip city and trouble? [religious and age exemptions may apply]

9) The Walking Wounded – just ending a relationship, which is where her energies still lie; just not ready for prime-time relating. This state can last for years.

10) The Supervisor – a perfectionist who will constantly tell you what’s wrong with you, which is good only if you want to work on your weak areas and can stand her being right occasionally.

11) The Starlet – gorgeous, and looking to cash in on her beauty power and go places; doesn’t care who the man is.

12) The Crazy Lady – “There are lots of crazy ladies. Trying to avoid them is very tricky because craziness can be charming, enchanting, and bewitching [and better at sex], and also because there are so many degrees of craziness. Contrary to popular belief, the craziest ladies have not been in therapy.
“The ones who are truly crazy stay far, far away from help. But there are signs that a woman is too disturbed for you to have a serious relationship with her. Addiction, constant depression, uncontrollable hostility, the hearing of voices, and an inability to be happy are all signs of a crazy lady.”

Wow. Just when I think I’ve read enough around these parts to sufficiently toughen me up, I read something like this while I’m running on the treadmill and find that I have to stop because I cannot run, read, and cry simultaneously.

From the article:

Sometimes, in the bath, the children cry. Their nakedness, or the warm water, or the comfort of the old routine dislodges their sticking-plaster emotions and shows the wound beneath. I gave them that wound, so now I must take all the blame. I wounded them and in this way I learned truly to love them. Or rather, I admitted it, admitted how much love there was. What is a loving mother? It is someone whose self-interest has been displaced into her children. Her children’s suffering causes her more pain than her own.

Can some please answer this question for me – how do you read this and keep from being filled with hatred? I am a Christian, but my first reaction wasn’t to pray for this woman but rather blinding hatred for her. I don’t hope she finds Jesus; I hope she steps off the curb without looking and is flattened by a delivery van. It upsets me that I am reacting this way. How do we keep from becoming hate-filled? How do we show the love of Christ when confronted with someone like this?

– One mother had a child with a boy who was going into the service.
Her mom thought of caring for the child as her own but said it was her daughter’s responsibility,
while the daughter wanted to be the child’s mother and not sister.
She set up an open adoption, where a couple raise the child and she gets to see the child once a week.
She realizes as she talks about plans for college that she won’t be in the child’s life that much or at all.

– Two moms living together went to a group meeting, they talk about them not thinking and being in the moment (i lol’d).
One of them goes to the doctor to get birth control (lol’d again), she goes to an after school program to get credits and has the teacher taking care of the baby as she works.

– A pastor says that teenage sex isn’t being talked about, but he’s having discussions about teenage sex with only teenage boys.

A 13 year old boy talks about the pressures of sex, one example being that he’s thought of as gay by girls if he turns down their advances.

– Another mom is still in school and plans to get a job in the nursing field, she’s being supported by her parents.
Her mom says that in the long run she’s gonna see that it’s not easy and hopes the baby doesn’t ruin her daughters dreams.

– They have a program in memphis where teens take care of dolls to see what it’s like having a baby, One girl said the group was excited at first to get the babys.
In 4 years only one girl was gotten pregnant after doing the retreat.

I’m curious why women preoccupied with Asian culture would turn out bad. A lot of Asia is less affected by feminism after all. Also, gingers express a few very strong traits brought out through inbreeding. Although that inbreeding has many harmful effects, such as odd medical conditions and mental health problems. Her genetic weaknesses may make redheaded women more likely to mate with non readheads for the sake of beneficial genetic diversity, and men often are sexually attracted to redhead women, knowing that more of his traits will be expressed in their potential children.

I am a red head. My saintlly mother was a red-head. Sir Winston-Fucking-Churchill was a red-head. Queen E. the 1st. was a red-head.
I am the only one of them still living. So let me share a secret about us…….
It is not hard to start to kill, it is only hard to stop.

Alpha Mission, the only negative thing about women from Asian cultures that I can think about is this : A man does not simply marry the woman. He marries her whole family and extended families. Admittedly the specific directive was to avoid women “preoccupied with Asian culture”. – yes, I can’t figure out that one either.

“Almost cut my hair
It happened just the other day
It’s gettin kinda long
I could have said it was in my way
But I didn’t and I wonder why
I feel like letting my freak flag fly
Cause I feel like I owe it to someone

Must be because I had the flu’ for Christmas
And I’m not feeling up to par
It increases my paranoia
Like looking in my (rear-view) mirror and seeing a police car
But I’m not giving in an inch to fear
Cause I promised myself this year
I feel like I owe it to someone

When I finally get myself together
I’m going to get down in that sunny southern weather
And I find a place inside a laugh
Separate the wheat from the chaff
I feel like I owe it to someone”

@Freebird – the yarmulke(skull cap) is worn 24/7 by Jewish men who are given to prayer and might be transcended in the presence of G_D (like Ezekial, Elijah). It is done away with in the New Covenant since Christ is “the head”. As pointed out by Paul in Rom 9-11, there is a temporary blindness on the bulk of Israel.

Women to avoid if you’re looking for a relationship (from Lord Valtrex’s list)

Additions to the list,
Any woman who is a Democrat, calls herself a feminist, or supports NARAL
Any woman who has ever called the cops on a lover for whatever reason
Any woman who wears a uniform and/or gun to work
Any woman who rides a motorcycle (passenger on one not included)

1. The Attention Whore. Dances on tables at the bar. Loves her Facebook page.

2. The Entitlement Princess. Demands all her man’s time, money and resources. Whatever she wants, she gets, one way or another. Will withhold sex if that’s what it takes.

3. The Status Whore. Points out her Louis Vuitton handbag, and the famous/notorious people she knows or has worked with or has met.

4. The Special Snowflake. There is no one like her. She’s not a slut because she does it better than her friends. Besides, she is just being true to herself.

5. Certifiably Crazy. Bat shit crazy. Great sex at the beginning but turns to violent, threatening. Fatal Attraction time. She should not be dating, she should be in therapy.

6. The Single Mother. Always broke, always fighting with her baby daddy. You’ll never be first in her life. Pass.

7. The Needy, Clingy Girl.

■Subtype A. The Insecure Sexual Dynamo. Not to be confused with Certifiably Crazy. Neurotic, but not nuts. Great sex is a front for deep insecurities. Extremely emotional, given to crying jags. Needs lots of reassurance. Negging her will put her in therapy for years.

■Subtype B. The Female Nerd. Intelligent and perceptive, but insecure. They don’t get a lot of male attention so they glom onto whatever man gives them attention. Can make good girlfriends if they can be secure in themselves.

8. The Carousel Rider. She’s “ready to settle down” with a “nice guy” like you because she is “not like that anymore”. She’s “tired of the games” and “doesn’t want players”. She’s sexually experienced but will wait with you because she “want[s] to do it right this time” and does not “want to get hurt”.

9. The Career First Woman. Career comes first. Not necessarily a ballbuster but might be. She fits you into her life, you don’t fit her into yours. You’ll always be second to the job.

Excuse me – No guitars? No guns?! Now that’s not fair, you are hogging all the good stuff for the guys.

Are those blanket rules? What about acoustic guitars ? I agree that electric guitars are clearly phallic substitutes, but am I out of line for strumming the chords to the Olde Tyme hymns on my acoustic guitar? And what about if the gun is just for personal protection, not work? Oh, say that I do not have to give up my beloved Kimber 9 mm Solo carry pistol to be a real woman!;)

Regarding “no redheads” – genuine, genetic redheads are not that common in the US.
Most of the under-30 women with “red” hair are sporting dye jobs, and very often some piercings and tats as well. Were I on the market in that demographic, I’d be leery of wimmenz with that look for any relationship that is expected to last longer than it takes to deliver a coffee or tea order to me.

I’m always impressed with your writing and your social perceptiveness, however I’m compelled to point out the Elephant in the room. Your outlook hinges upon the acceptance of Biblical model of propriety. With that presumption it’s convenient to take a swipe at anyone who strays from the model, particularly if their life choices now leave them a messy bed in which to lay.

BUT, if (and I realize this is an “if” few here will consider) the Biblical model emanates from a ancient *human* source, flaws and all, then it should not be surprising if these flaws manifest themselves particularly in our modern, gloriously prosperous society replete with options, life expectancy and social freedom. We already know people are not inherently monogamous long term. Perhaps trying to enforce such a model yields unhappiness in most cases as indications seem to suggest. In that context perhaps your “trashy” single mothers are not so trashy. Perhaps they and their non-monogamous partner(s) are implementing the biological imperative perfectly.

In that context Biblical monogamy and it’s weekly admonitions become one big coping mechanism. In which case your castigation comes off as one big juvenile raspberry from the pew.

@MichaelSinger – Any insight into why “red heads” are more given to ” angry psychotic / hysteria ” behavior than the rest of the bunch ?

I’m gonna be a biased observer too close to the situation to likely be of much help… my brother was a carrot top in his youth, so I’d have to write a book to explain fully.

The fiery variety of redhead would get a chapter or two — the one I probably knew best, though only for a short time, was also about the trashiest single mom (come to think of it) that I’ve known. Beyond what ybm pointed out, and off just a sample of one, here were the clues…

1) dysfunctional family (still lived close to home/parents, and this was not a good thing)
2) seemingly random anger issues apparent from the start (though not directed at ‘men’, or me – yet)
3) WICcan (though trying to be a better/good witch, there in subsidized housing)
4) no car; hectic/chaotic lifestyle (planning is pointless; just one mess up after another to bitch/complain or be sad about; merely getting around was problematical)
6) net: the modern independent damsel-mom in distress (rescuing was fortunately not part of my training)
7) she would have been of pre-tattoo vintage, so at least they’ve made it easier to spot `em

My excuse is I was young and naive. Livin’ in the Land of the 35 Year Old Grandma. Yeesh!

The 7-8 y.o. (Jasmine) was actually about the least of the problems. When I accidentally crossed paths with them about a decade later, the kid was a generic alternative/goth-ish bland confused disaffected high schooler, with zero trace of femininity in her. The community colleges are full of such kids trying to be not-mean while also vaguely adopting a pose of don’t-mess-with-me toughness. And the still-single mom was up to driving a junker w/plastic trash bag for the rear side window (I’m not kidding).

@AnonymousReader: yes, the modern chemical marvel of cheap mass-produced dye has bogussed the redhead market; but they don’t realize how easy it is to spot (maybe I just have a trained eye), and thus how it makes it that much easier to weed more of `em out (the non-redheads). Using it has gotta be like a form of multi-personality disorder. Unless it’s her guy’s idea, though I don’t think I’ve ever heard of that.

I’m always impressed with your writing and your social perceptiveness, however I’m compelled to point out the Elephant in the room. Your outlook hinges upon the acceptance of Biblical model of propriety. With that presumption it’s convenient to take a swipe at anyone who strays from the model, particularly if their life choices now leave them a messy bed in which to lay.

BUT, if (and I realize this is an “if” few here will consider) the Biblical model emanates from a ancient *human* source, flaws and all, then it should not be surprising if these flaws manifest themselves particularly in our modern, gloriously prosperous society replete with options, life expectancy and social freedom. We already know people are not inherently monogamous long term. Perhaps trying to enforce such a model yields unhappiness in most cases as indications seem to suggest. In that context perhaps your “trashy” single mothers are not so trashy. Perhaps they and their non-monogamous partner(s) are implementing the biological imperative perfectly.

In that context Biblical monogamy and it’s weekly admonitions become one big coping mechanism. In which case your castigation comes off as one big juvenile raspberry from the pew.

Thank you.

Stipulating for the sake of argument that the biblical model of marriage comes from a human source, even then there is no disagreement on the practical truth of it. See the evolutionary psychologists and PUAs for a secular path to the exact same conclusion. Marriage is needed to form the family unit children and nations need to thrive. While the feminist/welfare state can do a fair job at providing mothers with the housing, protection, and financial resources which husbands traditionally provide, they can’t substitute for the emotional stability the husband’s leadership brings to the household and the benefits growing up with a father provides to children. Also, while the carousel is clearly alluring to young women, in the long run biblical marriage is a far better deal for them. How else can a woman benefit from the tingle of submission in loving safety? The reality is there is no such thing as a little commitment. Once you cross the threshold from lifetime marriage to really important boyfriend and girlfriend, it all falls apart. Women can’t bond to their husbands in the same way after having sex with other men. The proof of this is all around us, and even though it is against the dominant religion of our time (feminism) scientists can no longer deny it.

Christians have had the answer all along, but fairly recently fell into the trap of believing that feminism was scientific and represented inevitable progress. Now that we have foolishly cast aside biblical sexual morality the massive human cost of doing this is undeniable, and PUAs and scientists are having to explain to Christians why the Bible was right all along.

– Woman with daddy issues.
The father is her one and only example of what men are, so any man who comes into her life will be seen as her father.

@ van Rooinek

“- any woman who has, or has ever had, a restraining order against an ex husband or ex boyfriend. (ether she’s trouble…. or he is).”

1. If it’s legit…
She’s damaged goods cause not only was she ok with being pysically abused, but after the relationship is over she’s suspicious of every man and has built up a wall between her and them.

She stupidly belives that a piece of paper is going to protect her, if he’s already commited a crime why wouldn’t he take it further ?

2. If it’s BS…
She’s manipulative as hell and when (not if) her new man pisses her off she’ll have no problem using the same tactics she used against her last partner.

Thought Rachel Cusk’s ‘public confession’ was a compelling read, its not often you see both a feminist and breadwinner wounded in a divorce, got forced through one myself, a pretty bad one at that so I can relate to her position, a position of being stuck in a whirlwind of pain and confusion the level of which has to be experienced to be believed and to which you are completely unaware of how to exit.

We need more articles like this, to balance out the EPL momentum, to show the suffering that is inflicted. The only thing that will stop women divorcing at the rate they are is if they believe real suffering exists for them once they hit the detonator. As they sure don’t give a monkeys about the male or kids suffering thats going on. At some point this must come full circle, its an impossibility for them not to reap what they have sown, God will ensure this, it’s just a matter of when and in what form this will come.

Divorce really is a force of destruction, it certainly felt like the ripping of one flesh into two identities, to me anyway.

Dalrock: Now that we have foolishly cast aside biblical sexual morality the massive human cost of doing this is undeniable, and PUAs and scientists are having to explain to Christians why the Bible was right all along.

Not to turn this into a religious discussion but the Bible is all over the map with sexual morality with episodes like Lots daughters, Judah and the prostitute and polygamy in general. Jesus words (such as parable of the ten virgins, etc) does nothing to dispel the former leaving some figures such as Martin Luther to conclude it’s still appropriate in some contexts. We do know the Romans advocated one wife marriages however which carries its own implications.

Leaving theological issues aside, one of the most influential factors in the success of a Marriage and/or their offspring prosperity is socioeconomic status be them Christian or otherwise.

Dalrock: Now that we have foolishly cast aside biblical sexual morality the massive human cost of doing this is undeniable, and PUAs and scientists are having to explain to Christians why the Bible was right all along.

By almost any measure human quality of life on planet Earth is at an all time high. And the latter part of your statement is quite a bit wishful.

Regardless though, your casting the women in your post as “trashy” seems to come from the mere fact that they are single, female and have children – for you mention no other behavior. Your response to their bitching appears to be a convenient “I told you so” with little regard for your alternative – namely trudging ahead with a single sexual partner and finding ways to cope with your innate desire to do otherwise.

If you come to feel the need to put down and dishonor certain ancient European Groups who bore the gift of red-headedness – because you think you can safety box them all up iinto condign categories – and then subject them to punishments at your whim……. Then my friend. The really vivid ,converations this moment deserves are have barely even learned to breathe yet..

@ Michael Singer
Thanks for your reply.
I would have thought those Jewish guys would have some serious reason for wearing the yarmulke.It’s an odd thought that it must be (or could be)transcended.
I see I’m going to have to visit some Jewish Torah sites and do my own research on this matter.Perhaps the Jewish guys wear a covering whilst their wimmin do not?
(because they are whipped into submission?)

@Zeuss-“We already know people are not inherently monogamous long term”

Or is that an affliction of the modern and age and your comment is post revisionism?
Back in the day most married and were true in the desire for monogamy?
Why was there any marriage to begin with if folks did not want to “Pair off?”

The Old Testament had some figures who engaged in polygamy. Lot’s daughters? Did you forget what happened to Lot and his family? Pillar of salt, fire raining down on their city and all that? Remember where they were? Sodom and Gomorrah?

Polygamy? Look at Solomon. He was polygamous and it was his downfall because his loyalties were divided. He gave in to his wives from other cultures and started worshiping his wives’ gods. Take King David. Married to a shrill harridan who hated him and made fun of him (Michal). Committed adultery with Bathsheba, murdered her first husband, knocked her up, had to take her as his wife, his son Absalom warred against his own father David and was killed, David’s kingdom divided and at war for the rest of his life.

These men were righteous but not entirely obedient to God.

The righteous, “obedient” OT figures are married to one woman. (NOTE: “RIghteous” does NOT mean “perfect” or “sinless”. Adam, Noah, Job, King Hezekiah are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

And only wealthy men could take on more than one wife. Kings, landowners, etc.

The New Testament made clear one wife is the norm. Practicality is the reason, I suppose. She wants to respect and submit to him. He is to love her. A righteous man of the church is to be “a husband to one wife”. Maybe they looked at David and Solomon and said, Hmmmm. Being married to more than one woman doesn’t seem like a good idea. Look at all the problems it caused them. Same with Isaac — married plain but reliable Leah through a trick by her father Laban; then worked another 7 years to get Rachel the hottie. He’s married to them both. Is it worth it to work 7 years for a hottie?

“Leaving theological issues aside, one of the most influential factors in the success of a Marriage and/or their offspring prosperity is socioeconomic status be them Christian or otherwise.”

How do we define marital success? If we define it as earning money, maybe you’re right. But if we define it as remaining together and giving each other loving support and help, then money isn’t going to help them. Mutual attraction and affection and affinity for each other would be the measure, I would think. Improving SES doesn’t seem to be helping a lot of men and women get together and stay together. I know legions of men with money who can’t seem to attract a woman. I know many women who are accomplished professionals who aren’t attracted to any men but thugs and alphas who tingle them and won’t marry them. None of the men those women are attracted to want to marry them. They both have high SES, but no marriage or even marriage prospects. By your standards they would be excellent marriage prospects for each other, yet the women aren’t attracted to the men. Why do you think that is? I think it is because many of them have developed a taste for alphas, or have high Ns and cannot bond, or have standards for men that are so stratospheric as to be completely unreasonable and there isn’t a man alive who could possibly measure up to their standards.

“Dalrock: Now that we have foolishly cast aside biblical sexual morality the massive human cost of doing this is undeniable, and PUAs and scientists are having to explain to Christians why the Bible was right all along.”

Zeus: “By almost any measure human quality of life on planet Earth is at an all time high. And the latter part of your statement is quite a bit wishful.”

Deti: QUality of life in North America is rapidly declining for all but the wealthiest and poorest. The wealthy have their own money. The poor rely on the government. Everyone else is on his own.

PUAs and science are continually proving Biblical wisdom works best for long-term family stability. Children of divorce are likely to divorce themselves. Women are marrying men they don’t love and aren’t attracted to for the status of being married, then divorcing for cash and prizes, then becoming post-divorce spinsters when the hunky millionaire handyman doesn’t materialize. Women have demonstrated they are willing to feed their own children to the divorce wood chipper for the sake of their own haaaaappiness. (I personally have seen more than one woman do exactly this. Her children meant nothing to her. Her Christian faith took a backseat. No, her haaaappiness came first.) More and more men are dropping out and refusing to feed a system that is stacked against them.

What kind of a world do we live in when some men would rather eat a bullet than live as a divorced man, never seeing his children and being forced on pain of imprisonment to pay 50, 60, 75% of his earnings to his ex wife? What kind of a world do we live in where women would rather go for the supreme tingle and ruin their children’s lives in the process than get them to adulthood with some measure of stability?

Quality of life at an “all time high”? Seriously?

Say what you want about PUAs, but what they are telling us about female nature is spot on. The absolute worst of female nature is on full display in our culture:

–Worshiping the tingle uber alles;
–chasing alphas for sex;
–women refusing marriage and motherhood for DTF sex with douchebags and men who will never, ever commit to them;
–divorcing good men for little more than “lack of attraction” or “unhaaaaappiness” and then demanding the man’s resources be plundered and stolen to support her post-divorce lifestyle;
–shameless female infidelity;
–brazen lying about partner counts and sexual histories;
–trading on sex appeal for free drinks, meals, entertainment, gifts and vacations

The men who learn to capitalize on this clean up. The rest get nothing.

“Regardless though, your casting the women in your post as “trashy” seems to come from the mere fact that they are single, female and have children – for you mention no other behavior. Your response to their bitching appears to be a convenient “I told you so” with little regard for your alternative – namely trudging ahead with a single sexual partner and finding ways to cope with your innate desire to do otherwise.

“In short its simply name calling.”

I think you didn’t read the post. Surely you can read between the lines. Dalrock did mention other behavior. These are women publicizing their own dysfunctional lives for crass entertainment purposes and money. Part of that publicity will be of their children and the effect their mothers’ post-divorce, post-marriage dating and sex lives will have on them. These women will be shown dating, hooking up and having sex, and talking about their experiences. Presumably, so will the children. Their dysfunctions will be broadcast on national TV and depicted as “normal”. They and their children will become celebrities, whether they like it or not.

Many of these women can do worse than “trudging ahead with a single sexual partner and finding ways to cope with your innate desire to do otherwise”. If women want to sex alphas all their lives, I have no problem with that. If that is the case, then they should not marry and should not have children. The women ready to put their dysfunctions on full national televised display should also have undergone tubal ligations at 17, IMO.

Women are allowed to indulge their taste for serial monogamy. But men are pillored and castigated for their desires for soft harems. The difference which you don’t note is that it is far easier at the beginning of their lives for women to engage in serial monogamy than it is for men to gather soft harems.

I was always puzzled by women who loved Julia Roberts’ character in Pretty Women; a whore who gets the man of her dreams. Why would a women who has never been a whore root for one? This post and its subsequent comments answered my question. Thank you.

1. You can’t judge the whore
2. If you judge the whore, you’re judging all women
3. it helps a woman rationalize that even if she’s a slut, she’s not as bad as the Pretty Woman character
4. it helps the woman rationalize that even if she’s a slut, she can still get the hot guy at the end of the slutting

“We already know people are not inherently monogamous long term. Perhaps trying to enforce such a model yields unhappiness in most cases as indications seem to suggest. In that context perhaps your “trashy” single mothers are not so trashy. Perhaps they and their non-monogamous partner(s) are implementing the biological imperative perfectly.”

So …. if women are unhappy in monogamous relationships, why do we hear so many women complaining about NOT being able to find men willing to marry them?

I really didn’t want to believe this, but I’m starting to think there is truth to the manosphere notion that women are just never happy or satisfied with anything.

God the men that read this site are fucked up. Do any of you like women? I am a single mom with two kids who works, has her own business from home, and a PhD. Women don’t want to be married nor stay married because of the BS expressed on this site. Most women just want to be left alone with their kids. I can tell you I am happy being single. I talk to so many women whose husbands are into porn or have cheated or who boss them around. I am Christian and the God I know wouldn’t want me putting up with that crap. Look I am making money but I am not rich, but I will take being poor any day over the BS you all are spewing. And you call yourselves Christians? God help us. Did some guy on here encourage married women to grease the rope to hang single mothers? Is this a witch hunt? Really fucked up

“Women don’t want to be married nor stay married because of the BS expressed on this site. Most women just want to be left alone with their kids. I can tell you I am happy being single.”
What BS expressed on this site? Holding evil women accountable for their actions?
We can leave those women alone. They will have to be truly on their own though. No state-ordered alimony and child-support or any of that stuff that makes it so she isn’t technically on her own.

“I talk to so many women whose husbands are into porn or have cheated”
Where is that defended on this site? And porn isn’t justification for divorce. It means that the wife is failing in her marital duty of providing a sexual release for her husband.

“who boss them around. I am Christian and the God I know wouldn’t want me putting up with that crap.”
God forbid that women fulfill their role in a Biblical marriage. And you’ll find that most commentors here have the opposite problem where their wives won’t do a single thing for them.

“And you call yourselves Christians? God help us.”
Faith without works is dead. And single mothers who throw away good and decent men need to be held accountable for destroying their families and the abuse they inflicted upon their children, not coddled and told they are ‘heroic’ by false prophets.

Zeus said:Not to turn this into a religious discussion but the Bible is all over the map with sexual morality with episodes like Lots daughters, Judah and the prostitute and polygamy in general. Jesus words (such as parable of the ten virgins, etc) does nothing to dispel the former

Hey, all right: you read the Bible! Now if only you understood that from the beginning man was not asked or designed to do what is right in his own eyes, but to be obedient to God. Now, too, if only you understood that the Bible is a historical document as well as a revelation of God’s will. That means not everything the patriarchs did is good. Now, also, if you understood that God hates the wicked in heart, not the wicked in deed.

@SSM,
Yes, my Hamster is pegged at the rev-limiter. She’s a highly educated, strong, independent, proud single mom. She’s like the most juicy pump’n dump target I’ve come across in several months.
Can’t you tell I’m interested by my negs?

Lori….God the men that read this site are fucked up. Do any of you like women?

Yes, my wife of 10 years, and quite a few others. Good women. It’s only EVIL women that we can’t stand.

I am a single mom with two kids

I’m treading carefully here because a FEW… a very few… single mothers are geniunely innocent. Like, widows, pro-life rape victims, and the RARE divorcee who was FORCED into divorce either by actual physical danger, or by outright abandonment. If you fall into the innocent category, yo have my sympathies.

Most single mothers, however, got that way by sinning –either by having sex out of wedlock, or by divorcing their husband for no good reason. Even some of the abandoned ones, got that way by chosing to marry a rich nonbeliever over a decent middle class Christian man, only to have their unequally yoked union blow up in their faces. For some reason my gut feeling tells me you are in the guilty category, but, I’m open to having my mind changed.

has… a PhD.

Math, Science, Engineering, or Useless?

Most women just want to be left alone with their kids

If that’s actually the truth, then, every bad thing said about women in the Manosphere is justified. Because the #1 complaint voiced about women on internet, by GOOD men, is that women casually cast us aside, taking kids, house, $$$ with them.

I can tell you I am happy being single.

No you’re not. Or you wouldn’t be so angry.

i talk to so many women whose husbands are into porn or have cheated or who boss them around.

Most cheating and nearly all porn use by married men, is because their wives broke the biblical covenant to take care of their husband’s needs themselves. Although I totally believe that porn is a sin, I’m utterly uninterested in hearing “Christian” women bitch about it, until such time as Christian wives, society wide, start getting a reputation for being GOOD sex partners for their husbands. Right now, they have precisely the opposite reputation.

Thanks to the oft-voiced complaints of married men, single Christian men are getting a clue that marriage, after the first few years, will be just as sexually frustrating as being a celibate single… and a lot more expensive. If the women refuse to take care of a man’s most basic need, why the hell would he bother marrying her? Remember in the old vows, “with my body I thee worship” was followed by, “and with all my worldly goods I thee endow'”. If the women aren’t going to play, men aren’t going to pay.

As for bossing women around… try controlling your credit card use yourself, then he won’t need to control you.

@Freebird = please keep in mind it has always been Jewish tradition to keep ones heads covered ( both men & women). When Paul wrote about about mens head being uncovered – it is quite radical concept ( this is very often missed). Consider Moses & Elijah to name a few kept their faces and heads wrapped as well as the head coverings of the Levitical / Korah priests. The NT covenant is both faces unveiled and no head coverings on the men (2 Cor 3 ) ie open access through Christ but women are to have their heads covered both physically and metaphorically speaking (headcovering & husband – not faces veiled).
From what I understand the very small yarmulke is something new and looked upon as a compromise by the hardcore sects.

Btw, great insight Deti & others to Loris reply. It is quite obvious she doesn’t like men and doesn’t see any benefit for them as a protector, father, husband, and friend.
I find it interesting she has two children, PHD, potty mouth while proclaiming to be a Christian.
You will get your wish – you will be left alone and your children will turn out “just like you” – apples dont fall from tress.
The reason why Christian men dont want to get married is the BS hypocritical, delusion stance of “Christian” women who imagine they are flawless, charming, and wonderful to be around.
Quite getting your advice from Cosmo and your girlfriends and read the bible and ask Jesus.

@Van Roonieck. I have read excellent PhDs in sociology (but he makes his living as a systems analyst) and I am sure there are equally good ones in the liberal arts. But I will stick with my Masters and writing more papers :’)

I can tell you I am happy being single. I talk to so many women whose husbands are into porn or have cheated or who boss them around.
——————————————————–
Lori. Really? Those poor men, Im glad you brought their plight to us so we can empathize with them. They are augmenting the two times per year, lights off, begrudging sex they are being GIVEN by the wives by looking at 2 dimensional nude pics and masturbating. Thats very sad, I agree.
Why are those women not taking the cash and prises they have coming to them? They sound a bit , well…challenged or something, since low fruit awaits their frivorce filing

*** “Now if only you understood that from the beginning man was not asked or designed to do what is right in his own eyes, but to be obedient to God. ”

*** “Now, too, if only you understood that the Bible is a historical document as well as a revelation of God’s will. That means not everything the patriarchs did is good. ”

*** “Now, also, if you understood that God hates the wicked in heart, not the wicked in deed.”

This is what we might refer to as the Evangelical Hamster.

* So Lot is hailed as a “righteous” man (2 pet 2:7) even though he gets repeatedly drunk, has sex with his own daughters thereby impregnating them.

* Judah seeks out and has sex with a prostitute, impregnates her (who later turns out to be his Daughter in Law) yet remains the esteemed lineage through which Jesus descends.

* Abraham and Sarah can have an open marriage and knock up his servant Hagar – yeah it’s all good.

And this is a short list.

The reality is people are not monogamous. Blame it on God, Evolution, the Devil or the Boogie-man but it is a biological fact. Hormones, endorphins, pheromones, the Coolidge effect all attest to this fact. The chemical markers for each stage of pair bonding (loosely lust, love, then friendship) are easily measured and all wane after 3-5 years.

So when you cast her as trashy you do so for no other reason than; she does not subscribe to your faith. Your religious snobbery is a bit ironic in light of your faiths sordid history and tenuous validity. But talking snakes, global flood and all Earths acreatures in a relatively small boat aside….perhaps Jesus’ own words (John 8:7) have escaped you?

“I am so sick of single mom stereotypes, and this articles just tries to justify them all. I’m sick of people thinking I’m any less an awesome mom because I don’t have a husband. I’m sick of people thinking I’m trashy because my kids have different fathers.”

I have spent the last five minutes trying to comment on this statement. I’m somewhat dumbfounded.

I went over and looked at that Mark Driscoll comment and thread. At least one man suggested that it’s men’s moral, Christian duty to marry a single mom because by doing so you show Jesus’ love and provision. And others focus that we’re not to be judgmental. Most of those single moms insist the men who impregnated them were abusive, or drunks, or not Christian, or abandoned the family.

One of the best comments was something like “the fact that she’s a single mom shows that we [good Christian men] were not worth waiting for.”

May I say that the worst (great?) novel I ever read concerned a man who as a juror in a trial recognised that the Defendant was none other than the woman (read: slut) who he had ravished a decade earlier and who was now on trial for Murder or some such crime. She (on conviction) is sentenced to a period in Siberia and our hero determines that as it was all his fault his Christian duty would be to follow her and offer marriage. [You will note this novel, Resurraction, is a bizarre re-run of Cinderella as the man is an Aristo and very rich and the woman just a serving wench.] I thus have total sympathy with those young students in Nazi Germany who (on 8th May the anniversary of and in imitation of Luther who on that same date nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittemburg Cathedral), saw fit to burn (amongst other books) their copies of the works of the works of Leo Tolstoy. Personally I think the second worst novel I ever read was Anna Karenina, where Anna is Unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapy and not wanting to be Raaaayyyyyppppd by her husband goes off with the Russian equivalent of a secret billionaire handyman (Vronsky). I enjoyed War and Peace however not withstanding that Pierre is so blue-pill that he asks to marry Natasha (the wife of his dead red-pill friend Andrei) which same Natasha had at some point broken off her engagement to Andrei to run off with the local Alpha cad whose name I forget.

This is why I am never going to be awarded a First or any other sort of Literature degree.

What a pitiful attempt at truth-telling. Perhaps what you are going for is: “People are not born monogamous.” Well, no shit. I mean it. You weren’t born with bowel control. It had to be learned. For myself there are precious few feelings better than a satisfying episode of dropping a deuce. So why is everyone happier when I recuse myself from the public to do this? Why oh why can’t I just be myself and pop a squat in the middle of a bar? You know: as nature intended.

Of course people are monogamous. They exist, and so your assumption is blown apart. This is because they practice monogamy. You would have us believe that the unskilled way is the better way, but the “natural” man cannot paint like da Vinci, or even a high school sophomore. The “natural” man cannot defend himself; much less a family, or land.

Meanwhile, the feral females (perhaps Dalrock’s best contribution to my thinking. I have yet to exhaust the implications.) take you at your word, and set about showing their asses* (literally and figuratively) to everyone. Why aren’t most men happy with this? Sure, they receive pleasure from the sight of ass, but why do men congregate here to bemoan and understand What Is Wrong With The World? Because we civilized men desire monogamy. We desire it precisely because we don’t have it. You would convince us that what we desire is wrong since it is passed on educationally, instead of genetically. That way lies the graveyard, as death is genetic, too.

Take your wanna-be Rousseauean, weak-ass, noble savage, barbarian worshiping garbage out of here. The wealth of civilization is such that we can afford to build apartment buildings to house Xbox-loving dorks and single moms–and we do it on the graveyards of savages. It’s precisely such Romantic sentimentalism as yours that ends up confusing and perverting men into laying down to die in stead of picking up the tools to build civilization, and learning to use them. It’s only natural, you see. You encourage them to become the “natural” man who sits quietly in a school desk, or a cubicle, and does what he’s told for a biweekly coupon that can be traded for other, greener, coupons. They must then think arousal and love are “natural” things that “just happen”. It’s no wonder why we poor bastards are drawn to porn–people like you have been setting us to the task of learning it, and calling it “natural”.

But talking snakes, global flood and all Earths acreatures in a relatively small boat aside

If you think I’m embarrassed by these “unenlightened” facts about my faith you’ve mistaken me for someone else. Worse: it’s a perfect demonstration of the corruption in thought that I wrote above. You’re so in love with your perverted view of the “natural” approach, that when you encounter the savage and true witness of the supernatural, you dismiss it out of hand. Those rare and awesome acts that the savages beheld (Jew and Gentile alike) you chalk up to fantasy. In other words: You fail to appreciate the unvarnished barbarian as much as you fail to appreciate civilization. It’s a useless philosophy you bear. It’s nihilism. You don’t advocate for purer and better men; you want animals and slaves.

perhaps Jesus’ own words (John 8:7) have escaped you?

It’s clear you’ve never considered the Gospel seriously. This is the Church’s fault.

To compare the John 8 adulteress who was about to be stoned to death with the general condemnation here** of wide-spread whoredom today is retarded and queer. Judgment without consequence or authority is not judgment; whatever the Christo-Feminists say.

*This reveals the simpleton thinking of the evo-psych/PUA assertion that men display and women choose because that’s how it’s done in the animal kingdom. Why, then, do women gravitate to heels, makeup, push-up bras, spanx, and control-top pantyhose, boob-jobs, liposuction, and perfume? Men can hardly be bothered to grow a proper beard. Animals, my ass.

John 8:2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. (NIV)

It’s a really sad commentary that you and your ilk here, call yourselves Christians and therefor followers of Christ; and use terms like “trashy” single moms. Christ came to save the sinner not the pharasees.
What of the raped? The downtodden, the abused? The woman who Heroically chose to go against societal pressures and not kill her unborn child, given and created by God.
You should be ashamed. Ashamed to call youself a Christian and publish this.
Where was the man caught in adultery in the famous Bible story? Where is your “trashy” single dad? Or rather the men who have impregnated and abandoned these women? Where is the scorn for them?
Men like you are why people hate and loathe Christianity. Thank God for Mark Driscoll and the unborn children he has helped save.

However please note that MOST single mothers, get that way by SINNING.. . either out of wedlock sex, or divorcing an innocent man for his money. And if you’ll do a little background research, you’ll find that single motherhood is the strongest statistical predictor for just about every social pathology that exists. Civilization CAN. NOT. SURVIVE. mass single motherhood, it has GOT to be stopped.

You should be ashamed. Ashamed to call youself a Christian and publish this.

We’re not, not even slightly, because we are self evidently right.

Where was the man caught in adultery in the famous Bible story?

I don’t know and neither do you. Are you saying the Bible got it wrong? Most likely, the man was simply stronger and faster, and got away from the mob.

Where is your “trashy” single dad? Or rather the men who have impregnated and abandoned these women? Where is the scorn for them?

Since I was a virgin til my wedding night… at age THIRTY EIGHT…. I have massive scorn for the trashy single dads. I controlled my penis, why couldn’t they? However… except in the rare case of rape (real rape, not drunken oopsies), a single woman CANNOT be “impregnated and abandoned” except by SINFULLY FUCKING AROUND. She is NOT a “VICTIM”, the stupid slut did it to herself. And she is bringing down all Western Civilization with her, because her fatherless children are at vastly higher risk for every social pathology from crime to chronic unemployment to drug addiction to homosexuality.

As to the divorced… yes, a SMALL percent of divorced moms are innocent victims. Most of them, however, were not abused or cheated on, they simply dumped their husbands out of boredom, and STOLE (under color of law) the children, house, retirement account, etc, from them.

Men like you are why people hate and loathe Christianity

Quoting St Paul — “Have i become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” Yes, it would seem so.

Thank God for Mark Driscoll and the unborn children he has helped save

Driscoll gets a lot of things right. However, he errs greatly for slamming the single men at church, as being “at fault” for the heartbreaking out-of-wedlock sex and and childbearing. MOST of the men that Driscoll harangues, are precisely those guys who had nothing whatsoever to do, with the problem. To be more specific, he blames Righteous Betas (who are often still virgins), for the sins of a small cadre of Wicked Alphas. More on this here.

Overnight I was thinking about the comment I left on another thread yesterday in response to a single post from Jane, who came here for a bit of male shaming about ten days ago. I was reflecting that the only people who come here to do that are women. Jane, was getting through life as best she could, and one sensed behind her contemptuous rhetoric that she too was probably a single mother failing to adequately make ends meet – at least she made no mention of a husband, but merely had “colleagues” – so she may have been a carousel rider. That the Androsphere has attempted to analyse the present state of families and tentatively put forward some solutions which would be to the benefit of women (like Jane) as well as children and also (dare I say it) Men – often, as here, from a Christian perspective – seemed to be lost on her, amongst her cries of “hate speech” and “small-penised losers”. There are commendable exceptions (Sunshine Mary for instance) but as always it seems to be entirely left to men to analyse and reflect beyond personal narcissism. I feel fairly certain that when the Androsphere is as popular as New Atheism, women will be rushing to get on board, and metaphorically erect net curtains, but in the meanwhile we have to endure people like Jane and immediately above Nadia who seems to be cut from the same cloth.

“Thank God for Mark Driscoll and the unborn children he has helped to save” writes Nadia. Any one, not knowing better, might suppose that Dalrock was a pro-abortion (do I mean, Right to Choose) site!

Nadia is a follower of churchianity. Also churchians please note Driscoll has a church full of Nadia’s dropping off cash and checks in the collection plate. He thinks he is the righteous one because he is so pleasing to man.

Oh, I forgot to add that “heroic choice” on the part of a woman means, you know, keeping her legs shut.

“I went over and looked at that Mark Driscoll comment and thread. At least one man suggested that it’s men’s moral, Christian duty to marry a single mom because by doing so you show Jesus’ love and provision. And others focus that we’re not to be judgmental. Most of those single moms insist the men who impregnated them were abusive, or drunks, or not Christian, or abandoned the family.

One of the best comments was something like “the fact that she’s a single mom shows that we [good Christian men] were not worth waiting for.”

That doesn’t surprise me the least. The Bible, and Christian dogma in general, is designed in a peculiar way so that it can be used to justify anything and everything.

The secular women (and some “Christian” women, like my ex) have abortion to escape full responsibility for sexual immorality.
Christian women at Christianity Today have the MAN UP message from Driscoll and others to escape full responsibility for sexual immorality.
I sense a pattern.

“Christians have had the answer all along, but fairly recently fell into the trap of believing that feminism was scientific and represented inevitable progress. Now that we have foolishly cast aside biblical sexual morality the massive human cost of doing this is undeniable, and PUAs and scientists are having to explain to Christians why the Bible was right all along.”

I wonder if Dalrock is a Christian himself, and if so, what kind. He spends a lot of time commenting on (and criticizing) Christians, but as far as I know he hasn’t discussed his own religious beliefs.

TheMan – “I wonder if Dalrock is a Christian himself, and if so, what kind.”

Sorry, I haven’t been around much lately, but I would have the same questions of you. Have you discussed/described your own faith?

I may be getting the wrong impression of you, but are you perhaps of the Churchian persuasion yourself?

If so, I can understand the seemly reflexive defensiveness regarding any questioning of Churchianity. I was myself a full-fledge Churchian for many years, unable to fully and rationally consider any criticism of Churchianity (which I had mistaken for Christianity).

No, I have the same beef with the majority of Christians as Dalrock does. I didn’t and don’t intend to criticize him for that quote (again, I agree with it and I agree with most of his opinions in the first place).

Churchies, mad at the world, mad at each other, mad at themselves. But the most annoying trait is the sad attempt to appear superior, morally and intellectually. This despite their unyielding support of a genocidal God who finds it appropriate to drown the human race, invade and ethnically cleanse the native inhabitants of “The promised land” of all men, women and *children* (yeah those kids are real dire threats). I find it amusing that your God got upset that the Israelites spared some of the inhabitants (Gibeonites) – he wanted them dead… nice guy. And of course y’all await the final blood in the streets showdown where more men women and kids are thrown into firery lakes.

You complain about a woman’s tendency to rationalize bad behavior but yourselves rationalize infinitely more scandalous if not horror ridden episodes of your own ancient texts.

You disparage people who question the validity of your “Faith” in the face of no evidence – scratch that – ample evidence to the contrary.

You hurl insults and judgement at people for not following YOUR moral code derived loosely from YOUR brand Bible interpretation despite there being >600+ variants of what exactly that code should be.

And now you are completely content to call a single Mom trashy merely for her status despite your reverence for patriarchs who slept with the help, their children, their compatriots wives and on and on.

Yeah this lady is trashy because she’s a single mom and every Churchy knows it’s inevitable her fault by withholding sex causing the hubby to cheat, not being submissive enough or watching Sex and the City then deciding to frivolously divorce “for cash and prizes”.

I’m no apologist for team woman but neither am I deluded that the average guy (Churchy or otherwise) is going to want to buckle down and trudge through unnatural monogamy either. The bottom line is most marriages turn into stale and unhappy roommate arrangements who stay together for a host of reasons besides mutual attraction.

Again: If you think you’re going to embarrass me with the miracles and judgments of the Old Testament, you’re talking to the wrong person. Your modern sensibilities are misplaced, and pathetic.

And now you are completely content to call a single Mom trashy merely for her status despite your reverence for patriarchs who slept with the help, their children, their compatriots wives and on and on.

Yes.

Yeah this lady is trashy because she’s a single mom

Yes.

I’m no apologist for team woman

Liar. From beginning to end your viewpoint is womanly in the worst sense. You’re bothered by rules, and judgment, and consequences. Men flock to these things. Your comments are one vaginal discharge of feelings and irresponsibility after another. “Oh yeah? Well if she’s bad, then all those old men are bad, too, and especially God!” Zeus, you are queer. I don’t mean that as just a cut-down. I mean you have a hermaphrodite’s understanding of life.

but neither am I deluded that the average guy (Churchy or otherwise) is going to want to buckle down and trudge through unnatural monogamy either. The bottom line is most marriages turn into stale and unhappy roommate arrangements who stay together for a host of reasons besides mutual attraction.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Of course the average guy doesn’t want to buckle down–that’s why they call it “buckling down”. Buckling down is what you do when you have to weather a storm, not what you enjoy.

The “bottom line” is that most folks who stick through those storms are happy, and happier, when they come out on the other side. You would suggest that they submit to the storm and die.

a genocidal God who finds it appropriate to drown the human race, invade and ethnically cleanse the native inhabitants of “The promised land” of all men, women and *children* (yeah those kids are real dire threats).

The normal rule of war for Israel, was to kill the men, but take the women, children, cattle etc, into the Israelite nation. However, for the 7 nations of Canaan, the rule was, “Kill every man, woman, child, and beast!” Why?

A friend of mine (now deceased, alas), knew an archaeologist who’d worked in Israel. This archeologist reported, privately, that they’d unearthed HORRIBLE things from Canaanite temples, so horrible that the archaeologist exclaimed, “God was RIGHT to destroy them!” We’re talking images of child molestation and worse.

Bottom line: These people were sex perverts of the worst sort. Every man, woman, child, and beast had to be destroyed, most likely because they all had sexually transmitted diseases! It was a SANITARY MEASURE, to keep the Israelis and their livestock healthy,.

@von Rooiek
Deuteronomy 13:12-18
12If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us
go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely,a both its people and its livestock. 16Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17None of those condemned thingsb shall be found in your hands, so that the Lord will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18because you obey the Lord your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.

Can the same rationale be used for this passage? That the religions that israel would adopt if they turned to idolatry would render them as utterly corrupt as the canaanites?

It’s a really sad commentary that you and your ilk here, call yourselves Christians and therefor followers of Christ; and use terms like “trashy” single moms. Christ came to save the sinner not the pharasees.

What of the raped? The downtodden, the abused? The woman who Heroically chose to go against societal pressures and not kill her unborn child, given and created by God.
You should be ashamed. Ashamed to call youself a Christian and publish this.

In which Nadia unknowingly proves Dalrock’s original point to a “T.”

The White Knights of Churchianity like Driscoll have normalized the trashy single mother, so that in the minds of the Churchian congregation, the raped, the downtrodden and the abused are in the exact same boat as the sinful harlots, whores and sluts who breed bastard children.

In other words, normalization! All single mother’s, no matter how they got that way, are the same “under the eyes of God” and a “loving Jesus!” There’s no between a cheating cuckold or a slut who was never married and a widow, they’re all the holy anointed and worthy of the love of Christ for simply being SINGLE MOTHERS.

Cane
That was was some series hardness coming through. Talking like man, mutha fucka. You must have just tore up some ass and sat down at the computer with your dick still wet and saw that garbage Zeus put up.

@jay
If God told Israel to put all in that town to the sword you can bet he was right in doing so.Ipso defacto.
Tell me,do you question the modern day scorched earth military policy as well?
George Bush said to go forth and lay to waste the land of the Midians and to leave it uninhabitable,and so it is,to this very day.
The difference is that God follows nature in lockstep,if it needed cleansing,it was for sanitary and/or pro-family reasons.
(not for gain)

I imagine most here are familiar with Firefly/Serenity and the “universe evil” Reavers. The characters being summed up as “They’ll rape us to death, eat us and sew our flesh to their clothes. And if we’re lucky, they’ll do it in that order”. Part of the reason the Reavers worked so well (aside from never being really seen in the main series) is that they’re historically accurate to a number of cultures. (Though cannibalism has always been a tad uncommon) The concepts are, generally, outside of current living history, but that type of barbarism is well established in history.

On something of a side point, we tend to talk about Jonah’s rather angst-y response to God about going to Nineveh (that whole bit about the Whale), but the Ninevittes were well and truly in that category of barbaric people. Which is why when they repented, Jonah was even more pissed off.

@jay:

Umm… the US military hasn’t used scorched earth policies since Sherman’s March to the Sea. Most especially not in the Middle East in any recent war.

@Looking Glass – Jonah was just a overall angry guy.
The Ninevenites were a truly ignorant people who didnt know their right hand from their left (They put sack clothes on their animals which shows their level of ignorance as well as their seriousness of repentance – They were eventually destroyed 200 years later if my memory serves me correct).

Regardless, they were a lot more receptive to repentance of a weird looking & smelling angry prophet of G_D then Western Evangelicals who are preaching/teaching the exact opposite and have a church on every corner where the pastors are smooth talking preaching cheap grace, rapture, heaven while begging for money.
Imo, they were much smarter in their generation then we are in our own – they heard the prophet, saw destruction coming, and did what G_D required of them.

I read the comments over at Driscoll’s Facebook wall on this subject. I was wondering if anyone would like to comment on this posting from a woman in his church:

Pastor Mark Driscoll. I was a single mother of three children by two different fathers. My husband had never even dated anyone. He began a courtship with me that changed my life forever and the lives of my children. We saved our first kiss(es) (we kissed twice) for our wedding day. I have felt the unconditional love and grace from a man that stands second to Jesus. We now have added three more children to our family. Jesus has given me more in my life than I could have ever asked for or deserved. He has radically changed my life. This post filled my eyes with tears. Thank you for posting.

Personally, I’m not sure what type of guy would wait to kiss his wife for the first time on their wedding day knowing full well that she done everything under the sun with a multitude of other men.

I would like to know,
1) What her husband does for a living and his income,
2) His age and her age,
3) Why he had never dated anyone,
4) Whether the three more children are the result of sex between between the husband and wife or were they adopted,and
5) Whether they are receiving some form of government aid to support six children.

This is all very charming, and I am sure we all wish them every happiness, but, you are never going to find that mislaid or forgotten novel by Jane Austen, where handsome Mr D’Arcy decides after about three hundred pages to marry the woman who had three children by two different guys. No, Elizabeth Bennett, you may rest assured would be considerably put-out if anyone were to spread the rumour that she was anything other than a virgin and – de facto – with issue. It is that, apart from some youth, and beauty, with which she is trying to tempt D’Arcy. It is her best card, and probably her only one. I know you can only marry what is available, but the woman mentioned appears to be not merely undesirable – matrimonially speaking – but a potential liability. If Driscoll is seriously trying to palm these shop-worn hussies off on the males of his congregation, he is effectively merely validating slutdom by his females. I am sure there is nothing in the NT to support that.

VR: A friend of mine (now deceased, alas), knew an archaeologist who’d worked in Israel. This archeologist reported, privately, that they’d unearthed HORRIBLE things from Canaanite temples, so horrible that the archaeologist exclaimed, “God was RIGHT to destroy them!” We’re talking images of child molestation and worse.

Ah an Urban Legend. Notice the conspicuous absence of a link related to this supposed find.

The Churchian Hamster has a huge workload. You are hoping that these people were so bad, so so super-duper bad bad that somehow killing infants and kids is justified. For clarification maybe you could explain what acts justify baby killing?

If you actually listen to the sermon (I don’t know if it’s in his notes), you’ll catch that he based the sermon off of what his wife wrote for that chapter in the book they were hawking by those sermons. If that’s wholly true, it’s saying that his wife is willing to call women for sin more than he is. But overall, anything that comes out of Driscoll’s lips is pretty much garbage when considered on the whole involving marriage.

Anyway, I wish you God’s blessing on your teaching endeavors and that the men who hear you are being reached through it.

The little men on this blog obviously want society to throw stones at single women again, so men can rule the roost again. Just too goddamn bad society is not going to let you men bring that slut shaming back.

On reading Tina’s comment at 11.03am on the 1st November, I was reduced to shame. How could I doubt the power of the logic and the force of the rhetoric of what she had written. How could it be anything other than envy, as I observed Tina or at least girls like her; girls who were now fully empowered and in charge of their own sexuality; girls no longer merely the playthings of hopeless Betas and Omegas such as myself, work their way through the serried ranks of Alphas. If only I could be lucky enough to grasp the crumbs from their tables I too would be only too happy to man-up and marry these powerful desirable women. Yet, as I wiped the tears (but not of laughter) away from my eyes I realised that I would never, given my small penis, and the fact that I am a loser who lives in his mother’s basement – the sort of man who would never appeal, even as a meal ticket for life – to women as fine as these. No, don’t tell me that I might be better off with a woman who had not run the gammut of STDs, Abortions and children by different fathers in favour of one who might foolishly and selfishly have thought better of such a life-style. I know that such a woman could not possibly be as worthy as the woman I had so heartlessly previously designated by the description Slut!

I owe a debt (which I can and never will be able to repay) to Tina for making all this so clear to me.

The little men on this blog obviously want society to throw stones at single women again, so men can rule the roost again. Just too goddamn bad society is not going to let you men bring that slut shaming back.

I bet you you’re the strong sort of woman who takes stones on the chin and keeps on going.

What is you college degree in, what are you self employed as? Science or fluff?

Yup, as I thought, Tina is a low class woman. She needs slut acceptance because sluts aren’t valued by anyone, as we all know, the little lies a sut like Tina tells herself don’t work so well when men are marryng nonsluts and passing over sluts like her.

“Self employed college-graduate” is how Tina describes herself. Apart from the fact that college graduates are two a penny – yesterday in the pub I met eleven (yes eleven) young females (accompanied by just two probably homo-sexual men) all who have just commenced their Doctoral programme for Clinical Psychology – talk about gaming – the one I was chatting up purred as I claimed to have assumed they were all school-girls. What my friend and I wondered was the point of it all seeing they all already had two degrees, having just completed their Masters. Was life really going to be more suited to them trying to analyze some murdering psychopath rather than bringing up babies? Forty years ago they would have been mothers but now they were just ripe for any casual Alpha to feast upon – all far away from home in for them a strange town. Some will marry; many won’t. Self-employed (at Tina’s young age) usually means hasn’t got a regular job. Welcome to the real world.

Wow, you’re pedaling it as fast as you can. Are you so threatened by a woman’s opinion that differs from your own? Gotta try to bring back that slut shaming all you can.
You live in a fantasy world…. with your “Alphas”, which you certainly aren’t (is that the cause of your outsized anger?) and your “Betas”, how pathetic.

Given the horrible economic collapse that’s coming, that clinical psychology degree that woman has is going to come in VERY handy. The gov’t will probably pay her to handle people.

Nice try on selling what I do short. Not gonna fool me into telling you what it is; given you have nothing better to do than stalk people, I don’t want you standing in my driveway and drooling.

Hi Tina,
I don’t think anyone is calling for shaming sluts or single mothers because they desire to control those women. It’s my sense, though I may be wrong, that most of the gentleman here do not wish to control, or even be involved with, any single mothers. I think what you are seeing is concern about the dreadful consequences of single motherhood on children. Children who are raised by single mothers fare worse on every single outcome than do their peers raised in two-parent homes; they are more at risk statistically of poor academics, dropping out of school, becoming pregnant while still a teenager, suicide, depression, major psychiatric illnesses, poverty, murder (often by their mother’s new boyfriend), sexual molestation, sexual assault, early onset of sexual activity, contracting a sexually transmitted disease, being diagnosed with ADHD, exhibiting learning disabilities, and a host of other problems. These statistics are very easy to find from reputable sources and are very well researched; google the effect of being raised by a single mother.

When you think about it, there are few things a woman can do to a child that are more cruel than condemning that child to be raised by a single mother. I think we can all agree that what we really want is healthy outcomes for children; that is certainly what I want anyway. Isn’t that what you want, Tina? If it is, then we are really on the same page and should work together to do whatever can be done to help reduce the epidemic of single motherhood for the good of the children.

“Given the horrible economic collapse that’s coming, that clinical psychology degree that woman has is going to come in VERY handy. The gov’t will probably pay her to handle people.”

Tina, there isn’t going to BE a government in the “horrible economic collapse that’s coming”, because there won’t be any money to RUN a government. A clinical psych degree will be less than worthless if that happens.

When the SHTF, the safest place for a woman will be with a man. Greenlander is right — slut shaming will come back with a vengeance. Men will expect and demand absolute loyalty and fidelity. Any disloyalty and infidelity will be swiftly punished probably by removal from the group. In a SHTF scenario, there will be no time, money, resources or incentive to keep sluts or traitors or unfaithful women in the fold. Anyone shown to be untrustworthy will be left to fend for him/herself.

Not true, Deti. I would think a clinical psych degree will be very handy to someone like Tina. A hooker need to be able to tell if her John is a beater, or if her pimp knows she skimming off the top. These are real-world survival skills in the dark future of whoredom that Tina is threatening herself with.

Given the horrible economic collapse that’s coming, that clinical psychology degree that woman has is going to come in VERY handy.

I wonder if you’re trolling here, because no sane person could actually believe that. And one would hope that an insane person, would not be allowed to become a clinical psychologist. One would hope.

The gov’t will probably pay her to handle people

Oh, so she’s a highly trained soldier, skilled with all kinds of weaponry and counterinsurgent techniques, too? Because THAT and THAT ALONE will qualify her to “handle people”. The guys (yes, it’s pretty much all guys), who spent the last several years going house to house in Iraq and rock to rock in Afghanistan, will be the ones called upon to “handle people”.

A clinical psychologist? Nobody will hire her. Nobody will even listen to her. She’ll probably end up turning tricks at the nearest Army base in order to buy food.

I”LL be making money when SHTF, I bet you won’t be. LOL

There won’t BE any money. Don’t you get that? You need to study some history, and find out what happens when societies fall apart. Weimar, Argentina, terminal Rome, Yugoslavia….

Gotta admit, she does have a point: Given women’s thinking limitations, all slut-shaming accomplishes in the current environment is convincing `em they need to learn to be better whores. Which amounts to extracting even more from men while giving ever less in return. It’s like doing the Female Mafia’s work, since we’re already on that ride.

I seem to have upset Tina – at least her Hamster seems to be in a tizzy. The reality of these worthless degrees (including a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology) is this: At (British) A’ Level standard 75% of scholars of Psychology are female (just above 77% who study Sociology) – compare that with the mere 7.5% of women who study computer science – my source is The Guardian. No one needs these clinical shrinks; some will go into health (and I can tell you that Judges merely skim their lengthy reports for the conclusion) and the rest will probably end up in the Human Resources Dept of a multinational where they will become personal with the personel – these are non-jobs though they pay nicely. These women will not be interested in male shrinks (as women are hypergamous) but on the look out for a wealthy banker. Bankers however have no objection to dating women with Doctorates provided they are young and attractive. These women are merely aging and are no more likely to be attractive than anyone else. Consider the ease with which my friend and I picked up these women! The only Game needed was to appear charming and intelligent (as we obviously looked like Bankers). Neging was out of the question.

It is not men who shame sluts – on the contrary, we cannot get enough of them – traditionally the shut shaming has been the work of older women who correctly recognised that easy sex for men made men less committed to women. Why buy the cow if you can rent it short term. Now, however, older women (as Cougars) are competing with younger women and for the same guys. It is younger women who should be shaming the Cougars and telling them to keep their hands off; for women, the older they get, tend to lose their modesty and what these cougars lack in youthful beauty they make up in experience.

Feminism has been an absolute bonanza for players, as there are now so many single women seeking to find themselves (via the Alphas) and wasting the best years of their beauty allowing their bodies to be sexually ravaged (whilst of course believing that this is empowering them). Traditionally women have granted sex for recompense: Prostitutes got a one-off payment in advance; wives got paid annuities (so to speak). What does the twenty or thirty something singleton get (apart from Abortions and STDs) – nothing as she sees her market value decline from whatever is its height (at say twenty-three). At a time when she should be cashing in her chips she is pretending to be a man but without the natural advantages a man has. Playing to ones week points is always foolish. It is (I suggest) that the reason for the rise in the absurdity of the sexual harrassment claims and false rape allegations is the dim realisation that women cannot cope with the sexual market place on anything other than a fiduciary basis. Free love is beyond them because they can never be held responsible for their actions. They need the security of a Father, a Pimp or a Husband.

That Masters degree must have racked up an impressive student debt. Better hope the payments can be maintained.

Falling behind can mean disqualification from eligibilty for a passport.

Even assuming our erudite scholar has ongoing employment, purchasing power from stagnant wages quickly propels the middle class into poverty. John Williams of shadowstats documents how cpi is several times the official figure.

A secure path into middle class poverty with no chance of leaving the country.

Well, if you treat sluts the same as if they are good women, then by default you are treating good women the same as if they are sluts… which, as you pointed out, is going to make it quite difficult for “team woman” to stick together, especially when you inevitably add hypergamy and sexual competition to the mix.
It amazes me that so many married mothers wish to stick up for the “heroic” single mothers. I wonder whether married women realize just how much of their own children’s resources are diverted to the little bastards of single mothers through government wealth transfers. Are they happy with the theft from their own, legitimate children to subsidize the slut’s brood?
It further astounds me that faithful, married women will stick up for “heroic” single mothers when I consider the fact that the slut is in direct sexual competition for the attentions of the husband. Does the married woman not understand that the single slut envies her life, and will happily spread her legs to lure away a good provider?
Faithful married mothers are the biggest loser in this lie…. Their God-given role in the home is debased, their legitimate children lose resources to bastards, and their sexual market value is lowered since sluts are no longer punished for attempting to lure away married men.
Of course, if faithful married women wish to argue that a slut should not be judged, and that they themselves are really no better then the slut, then who am I, as a man, to argue? I will simply accept that what they say is true and act accordingly.

^^^^^^^ Okrahead you are absolutely correct Thank you so much for the amazing response. There is hope after all!

Sadly the married women have been brainwashed so badly they are afraid to speak out. As most women are afraid to speak out against feminism, Because feminists tells them that if it weren’t for feminism women could not speak their own mind even. Personally I am sick of the the fact that being a slut is now a respected venue to undertake. So many guys I hear say that they would rather be with a girl who has a little experience then a virgin. Girls who are virgins and who stick to their chastity are literally ridiculed as losers, Hence, most women turn sluts. Men really need to begin to embrace virtuous women instead of sluts, because if sluts keep getting the approval. More sluts will just keep popping up.

did it ever occur to you that some single mums passed trough hell? that their husband became a drug addict or an alcoholic putting her and her kids life into danger? I’d rather be called a slut then risk my kids life. Who are you to judge people???? perfect people??? I honestly wish you the worst experience ever and when you post your sad story I will call you a SLUT!!!! Oh why is it always about single mums? there are as much single dads as single mums you know!!!! And believe me many married women are tempted by these single dads too!! This whole website is sooo soo stupid and just shows what type of people you must all be…probably the ones that sit front row in church and point your fingers as soon as you get out!!!!! Are you all insecure women and men…can’t trust your partners????and no believe me a single mum does not want her friend’s husband and thank GOD there are secure couples that are friends of single mums and dads.. PTfffffff what a joke! Honestly tonight I will pray for all of you to pass through half of what I passed through and believe me you will will become a small peanut !!!! bye ciao bye loosers

This idea that women only fuck so called alphas is a joke.
I am a 5’5″ redhead and have had women cheat on tall handsome guys with money with me.
This may not be typical but if a woman is with an average man she usually cheats on him withan average man, sometimes worse.
The guys who get laid the most are guys who suck women’s asses and buy them drinks and drugs, sometimes these guys are not even average loooking.
Some women are just sluts, unselective sluts. You could be tall handsome, intelligent and wealthy and your women could be fucking an ugly man with no money who is borderline retarded.
I have seen this alot and like I said earlier women have cheated on “alpha males” with me, a 5’5 140 pound guy with long red hair who was not worked for more than 6 months in total in his life.
No man is impervious to women’s bullshit, alpha, beta or omega. Drop the alpha, beta bullshit thinking.

After 8 years of marriage my husband decided he was unhappy and needed time apart. I was 6 weeks pregnant at the time with our second planned child. After waiting patiently for my husband to come to his senses, I found out that he was living with his new girlfriend. I never wanted to be a part of this group but here I am. How many single moms are coming from that type of situation? All of this while my husband (who has never got around to divorcing me) parties and acts like a single person. He has seen his children 1 time during all that. Society seems to accept him without any stigma and I am left facing this type of criticism. I understand and agree with many of the opinions on this page but why aren’t men ever held accountable for their negative choices or contributions? Why is it always the woman who chose to live like this or the woman who forced a man to do this? Honestly, it sucks!

The role of agony aunt is hardly one which I am cut out for or actively seek, and thus one can only feel sympathy for the situation of Sarah as described above, yet is what she says really a true picture of her Husband’s life. Men who move in with their new girlfriend are hardly ‘partying and living the single life’. Financially his actions are surely – sooner or later – going to impact badly on him and his new girlfriend, and the idea that no stigma attaches to his behaviour (never mind what inner turmoil he may feel) is surely mistaken – no man can say ‘she made me unhappy’ and be regarded as anything less than a brute for ditching his wife.

There seems to be a certain amount of information missing from Sarah’s comment. Early on we learn that Sarah is pregnant with a second child, yet later we learn that the husband has only seen his children [plural] once ‘in all that time’. We have no idea the time period involved. Further we are told that the Husband has never got round to divorcing Sarah (does he have any grounds to do so?) – yet surely Sarah has had both the time and the cause, and yet she has not sought to divorce her Husband either.

We of course do not know the Husband’s side of the story, which (from my experience) is likely to be rather different, and from that experience I can also answer Sarah’s enquiry as to how many women are coming from a situation where they are abandoned. The answer is some but not that many. Sarah’s final remarks – in so far as I can understand them – appear to accuse Dalrock and the blogs commenters of Hypocricy where she says ‘it sucks’ by which I take her to mean the attack on Trashy Single Mothers. As I observe it, Dalrock’s Blog starts from the premise that the Christian Church gives a pass to frivolous female divorce, and blames men whether they walk out on women or are themselves abandoned and Dalrock is keen to ensure the adherence of the Christian Church to Biblical Marriage for both men and women. I fail to see the hypocricy. If I have that wrong in any material way, I am of course open to correction and am not commisioned to speak for Dalrock.

So, let me get this straight. The majority here believe that we are not equals, with live in a class system, and that all single mothers do not pay their fair share. Oh if only I could give you my eyes to hear and my heart feel with so that you might understand. I feel like I just walked into a room full of the eyes, ears and hearts of hate. Stone cold brothers and sisters, stone cold. Open your mind and your heart will lead the way.

we’ve made being a single mother an automatic badge of honor. “i’m a single mother, so hey, you know,i’m a real woman”. there are different reasons, for and why, a person is a single mother. each one has to be seen on it’s own merits[or lack of]. it’s no more a given that it’s heroic,than it should be assumed that this is a dumb, or morally compromised person. “single mother”, in and of itself,should not have great significance without looking at the surrounding circumstances.

@ Mark Minter: So who is going to teach the future generations? Nick, TV, the government, the single mother!? According to your new world view of “modern” this and “modern” that you didn’t explain that portion of your argument. You sound like a girl or some liberal philosophy professor bisexual casterated old hippie. (probably just a butch femenazi)

If the government invades and buys into the human reproduction area like it wants to. (check out the social programs of communist countries…yeah yeah so they are so called “patriarchal” (pointless definition that makes no sense, its like calling solar systems without stars solarless systems, it makes no sense) And yeah, I also just equated the importance of a father to his children just as important as a sun is to a planet with oxygen and carbon based lifeforms.
According to you its fine if we become raised and bred by the government, deviod of love, and completely self-centered. To you and any “modern” man I say go to hell, and I’ll teach my boys and girls to say the same to you and your “modern” friends.

I want to raise my kids, I’m not a slave, you are. You sound like an existentialist, so that would mean there are no absolutes and you just wasted your time…and you are still wasting your “time” by “breathing”. I, however, believe that you exist and I have genuine concern about other people and our futures as a whole. I have known and known second hand of many kids boys and girls who grew up in single mother homes and have seen the devestation that it has done to their lives. Confusion and hate. I have also seen the opposite, the productivity and the love it is conducive to creating in their lives for the future…the “modernism” has compouned that…the acceptance of immorality in media and gov is destroying our economy. I’m not saying immorality is anything new, in fact it is old and their has never been peace on our planet. Rome fell in part due to the people getting fat, then lazy, and then turning to the gov. Ancient hebrews have always had it right, because they opened up their hearts to God, if you look at their social systems they had it right for their time, then a new testament was given to us (jew and gentile alike, their is no partiality with God) and if you follow the most christian and moral nation’s histories you see that it works, not totally of course, we are human and have free will.

Anyway, I want to teach my sons and provide for them, I love them. I don’t want to waste my life chasing tail and being ultra modern and have meaningless pissing contests, like you.

Hey! Thanks for the great material for my college paper about validity. Because you provided none except that there is STILL stigma about being a single mother. Hopefully your wife doesn’t decide she wants equal rights or you might find yourself doing your own dishes every night.
If you want to read my paper let me know!

Hey Delora Brei-Snowflake I’ve been doing my own dishes and my kid’s dishes and their guest’s dishes as a single Father for over a decade now – does that make me equally qualified with your highness boasting about a STIGMA? Kiss my A$$ beotch you aint got nothing on me.

There is always stigma attached to something that costs other peoples’ time and money. Being a trashy single mom is probably the highest stigma there is, as not only does it cost welfare and other expenditure, paid for by society, i.e. men who didn’t get to ‘you know what’, but it also leads to higher crime rates, less productivity and future general problems for generations down the line.

Single moms literally create future criminals and all the societal delinquency, but hey ho, there goes another hoe by the name Delora!

Stigma – the age old cry of the socialist bitch who wants free money from the state, the courts, & men in general……….but then decrees she cannot be judged for same.

Pull your head out of your ass and see the truth: The cost to society so that women ‘can have it all’ is TOO STEEP. If you insist on taking these ‘girl power’ actions, then don’t ask me, other men, or the state to PAY for your shitty decisions.

You can cry ‘stigma’ all day long, yet in the end you will have a much more difficult time raising a well adjusted child in a single parent environment (particularly, single mothers).

The sum of the whole (parents) is greater than the sum of the parts (male role & female role). Kids are simply better off in an intact family (provided there are no other parent issues such as addictions & abuse)

You can bitch all day long that it ‘shouldn’t be that way’……….but it will still remain the truth. It is that way.

Delora — go read the research on the effect of single motherhood on childhood outcomes. It’s all on the internet and a lot of it is reposted here at this website in one thread or another.

It’s well documented and not in dispute: Single motherhood drastically increases the rate of every social pathology — crime, school failure, chronic joblessness, promiscuity, homosexuality, alcoholism, drug addiction, and others. Ending single motherhood would dramatically reduce our social spending costs, and might save us from national bankruptcy if it isn’t already too late for that. Also certain ethnic groups who believe they’re being held down by “racism” would be shocked to learn that, when you control for the variable of single motherhood, the race gap disappears.

Sex outside marriage really does have a lot of negative social consequences — it is NOT just a harmless private pleasure. There’s a reason why all the historically long-lived religions and cultre, strictly ban it.

“.. you might find yourself doing your own dishes every night ..”
Well. Goodness. I am thunderstruck. Oh dear, I do believe I shall have to find somewhere to sit down, just for a bit.
Women actually know that it is possible to clean crockery, cutlery and pans with detergent, in a sink. By hand?!?
Garn, gettoutahere! Next you’ll be trying to make out they can iron clothes without setting them on fire, cook meal from raw basics and not poison themselves, and get out of bed, sober, before 11 a.m.
Definite wind-up. Never heard the like, pure cheek!

Women – females – seem to be caught between on the one hand demonstrating that they are just as capable as men even with a brood of little ones in tow – yesterday I came across a Twitter user going by the name of Selfmademum pictured with three children one of whom was clearly disabled; no sign of any Father – and on the other hand, shaming men into marrying them trusting that men will give them a pass on their slutty behaviour for they have as Ton implies little or nothing to offer a man who might be considering matrimony. Consider Single Pam who on the 22nd January 2013 begins her largely incoherent rant by suggesting that we do not know what she has been through – which we don’t; she, of course, has forgotten that she is supposed to be a Strong Empowered Woman ™ who does not need a man and is thus blaming men for failing to appreciate her plight. For Single Pam the opposition is between the rare and previously unknown juxtaposition of preventing your kids from being killed (seemingly the fate of children whose father is alcohol/drug dependent) and being a slut. We are led to believe this is the modern version of Scyla and Charybdis for Unwed Mothers though chastity and not throwing oneself at bad boys would surely have prevented the dilemma. She promised to pray for us on that night even as she wished us the worst experience ever – so I guess we might find those prayers coming in handy and for that we must surely be grateful even as she signed off by calling us a bunch of losers – I think in her anger she forgot the part about Small Penis and Mother’s Basement.

GreyGhost, Opus etc all, since these girls are so much smarter then me, they should be able to create a well reasoned pro and con reply in seconds flat demonstrating why they would make a great wife and why they and their thug spawn should be allowed between me and my 6 figure income

After all I’m just a loser who, cannot get laid, hates women etc etc…..

As a single middle aged never married woman, I can honestly say that most of these comments are true. I am (still) ‘considered’ attractive, am hard working, yet always was competing with single mothers who were somehow attracting more men than I ever did. Didn’t want to compromise and have a child out of wedlock and didn’t believe in co-habitating before marriage (which all of the men I became involved with wanted to do), and eventually have found myself alone and watching virtually all of the (formerly) single moms moving on and marrying their men, and having more kids with them. (These men were never married until they married them). They are now lazy housewives, lousy mothers (several of them had daughters who also did the same as mom-pregnant w/o husband, etc.) I still work 2 jobs, they laugh at me while eating Doritos and watching reruns of Oprah. They brag about being now proud Grammas. They’ll go into old age with security while I struggle with meager finances (of what little I am proud I earned myself and not by tricking a man into marriage by using my baby as extortion). Sad part is most of you guys treat women like me with disdain. Guess principles have no room in society anymore….you’re still using the word spinster….so much for being a Christian women. Even the ‘Christian’ men laugh at us-I don’t wonder why this happened anymore, I just look at the world now…

I have little sympathy for women who “accidentally” got pregnant with a man whom they did not want to raise their children with. Drunk, stoned, or sober…every woman has that moment when they think: “I should use protection, or I could get pregnant.” (OR AN STD!) The irresponsible woman who decides to go ahead and have unprotected sex anyway, or the weak, vulnerable woman who gets pressured into going along with what the man wants…it’s still not an “accident.” It’s not an unfortunate mistake that we have to feel sorry for them for making. It’s not doing your job, not taking care of your responsibility. If you got fired from your job for not doing something you knew you were supposed to do, or being pressured by someone to let them do something they weren’t supposed to do, I wouldn’t have much sympathy there either!

The thing that makes America really different from other countries is welfare. Single mothers can get money for food, shelter, and help with getting a job and childcare. If you live smart, you can do pretty well until your kids are old enough to work (16 with permission, 14’s old enough if you want to send them to under-the-table jobs, that’s when I started working). Without having to be a “hero.” I think the American welfare system is really generous, and this is from personal experience, not the view of someone who’s never been on it.

Here’s where I see single moms struggle: 1) When, for some reason, they refuse to seek child support from the father. You can go to court and they’ll help you for free, but many single mothers don’t do this. 2) When, instead of accepting that they have gotten pregnant and need to raise their children, they seek to keep up with their peers and want to go to school, and work, and be a mother all at the same time. These are the moms who are always complaining that they don’t have enough time, and looking to foist their kids off on other people. 3) When they work two jobs and buy their kids name-brand clothes and toys, instead of being strong enough to raise kids who accept their place on the socio-economic ladder. The 99 Cent Store is a wonderful place, but single mom is shopping at the mall. 4) When they have ended up raising lazy kids who consume what Mom makes, but don’t contribute even though they’re old enough to work. 5) When they have live-in boyfriends whom they support financially (it’s crazy how common this is, you would figure that a woman with children would be less willing to accept an adult burden, but it’s not the case!)

Wow; easy on the comments.
EVERYONE has been created by our Lord….and everyone single or married men or women should strive to walk a good path with absolutley no judgment. All we can do is better ourselves as people and let all find their own spiritual path…..women or men. We are equal in the eyes of God….desperation causes desperate measures although its no exuse but we arnt perfect….we are just as bad if we judge.
I’m a single mom and unfortunatley as much as I love my husband, it did not work out. It was lonely with him and without but everyone is different. Marriage should be respected by both the spouse and “potential mistress/sancho”. No throwing stones here: Peace n Love

“I’m a single mom and unfortunatley as much as I love my husband, it did not work out. It was lonely with him and without”

-Does the fact that each soul in each body created by God give you a free pass to divorce your chosen husband and separate your children from their biological father? Does it give you a free pass to destroy your children’s family?

And why? Because you were “lonely with him”? Did he physically abuse you or commit adultery? Not according to the reason you provided.

I’m a single mom and unfortunatley as much as I love my husband, it did not work out. It was lonely with him and without but everyone is different. Marriage should be respected by both the spouse and “potential mistress/sancho”. No throwing stones here: Peace n Love

#1) You are a divorced mother, not a single mother. You are a single mother if your children are born bastards and you never married the father. Since you admit you had a husband this is clearly not the case

#2) Men here have been burned by their ex-wives. They are going to have very little sympathy for women who get divorced from the husbands, not the least of which when they say “…it did not work out.” Huh? What exactly does that mean? Marriage is work but you can MAKE them work. You don’t leave a marriage that doesn’t “work out” the way you might leave a job.

#3) If you love your husband GET HIM BACK. I mean it. Go get him, get him back for your kid(s.) Your daughter(s) son(s) do not want their parents divorced. They want them married.

I am unwed single mother. I am also a lawyer and a devout Christian. I am appalled at the vile and horrid comments on here. Always remember the very stern warning by God, in HIs word, in relation to judging others…

I adore my child and she is an absolute blessing from God. To call a single mother ‘trash’ is abhorrent. I have no doubt that, one day, those who utter such vile words will meet Jesus and will be judged accordingly. Do remember that everything is recorded by God.

Yes, premarital sex in a sin albeit a child is an absolute blessing from God. The Lord forgives our sin. A mere human has no right to judge another and assume or utter the disgraceful comments pointed towards ‘single mothers’. There is a great judge and one day we will need to meet Him.

I believe that a ‘right wing Christian’ does not accord with the teachings encapsulated within the Lord’s word. I firmly believe that we aid the devil in turning away people from the Lord by being such hypocritical judgmental and self righteous individuals. Not the work of Jesus. I believe He would be ashamed of those who put forward such evil thoughts and comments.

I am a young single,Christian mother. I listen to focus on the family every morning on the way to class. And while I feel the “heat” from other people about being a single mom. I ignore it, because the beauty of my life and the faith I have in my savior, I overcome it.
I don’t care what some writer thinks, what statistics think, or what you want to call me. I am a hero to my precious son. Everytime he falls and hurts his knee, anytime he doesn’t understand something and I gently explain. Society to me is an illusion, and most of whom are caught up are sleepwalking. I care and vote for my safety, my freedom, and protection of my faith so that I may continue to spread the love of Christ. Half of you people don’t know what you are talking about. I loved someone once, and I conceived a child, the person didn’t love me the same, and he left. Now I set out with my child on my own journey, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, I hope to find a husband and build my life with him, because I want a family, I want to share my joy, and my life with my son, not to pick up the pieces of my brokenness. I turn to Jesus Christ for that. I am 23, my son is two, I have some minimal education, I’m from the south, but what I say is from experience, not from something I was taught. Just a little insight, you can be educated but still ignorant, and I believe most people who do write things like this are ignorant to what being a single mother is truly like.

Men in their late 20s who prefer x-box gaming and commitment-free sex aren’t contributing to the taxing dilemma of single motherhood??? You self righteous Pharisees, all you are good for is drawing people over to the atheist side.

I am trying to find something redeeming about this post and the many comments on it and there is nothing. I’m sorry that you have forgotten to look at the planks in your own eyes….
I am a 22 year old single mother to a 2 year old son. I will tell anyone who asks that YES I was living in sin and being irresponsible and having premarital sex (wow! SIN! i’m sure NONE of you have sinned!). My son’s father was abusive to me, and I left after God took the blinders off my eyes. I realized the overwhelming task of raising my boy to be a man of God, and that could not be done by A) me continuing to live in sin B) exposing my son to abuse (even if he is not the one being abused). So yes, I made a choice and left. But you know what? I’m not letting the government pick up my slack. I work full time and I am almost done with Nursing school. My son changed my life. I am NOT ashamed of him. I do NOT regret my choice to keep him (vs. adoption) because I would not be who I am today and I would not understand the depths of God’s love, grace, and mercy if it were not for my son. As for him, he has the most incredible grandfathers and uncles that show him what godly men are like. Anything negative he knows about his father does not come from me. He is infinitely adored, cared for, fed, clothed, etc.
I am no feminist, but there is NOTHING godly about calling single mom’s “evil”. Yes we may have sinned to get to this place, but in most cases, so did the man. I don’t care if you label me with a stigma, because that will not stop me from ensuring my son is not a statistic. Remember, the measure you use on others is how God will measure you.
Go ahead. Judge single moms. Make generalizations. Assume we are draining government resources. Think that we are man-haters and feminists. I am proud. But not proud to be woman or single mom. I am proud and humbled that God chose to redeem a situation my sin created and that he is renewing my strength to do what He has now called. I am proud my son is smart, well-adjusted, healthy, and loved. If you have a little time…maybe remember that this God you claim to serve….is a God of redemption

I’m a single mom. Not out of choice, my first husband had a need in him to be a woman, his mother was given an oestrogen based anti-miscarriage drug for her entire pregnancy (only meant to be for a week) that was banned in America at the time and is now banned in Australia, but still used in 3rd world countries (it is also linked with cancer). We had two children together. 7 years of marriage, a good marriage, apart from his growing depression from pretending he felt male.
I then lived with a man who said he would marry me, but withheld that promise, he gave me 10 years of violence and abuse and criminal destruction of property, shooting pets, controlling. I gave him 4 children. His abuse has scarred me and my children. Standing up to him was very important, defending my children more important.Now we can start to heal and recover.
You are wrong about the handouts from the government, they are limited, especially when he lies to the government about his income and says he has $0 income. But somehow can afford to go on a holiday to the Islands. Housing is hard to come by, thankfully we have good family. You call yourselves christians, but you judge too harshly. In the bible it talks about looking after the widow, and the fatherless and the vunerable, and those who are too weak to defend themselves…I know which side of the fence I stand on.
My circumstances are different. But the mothers you have judged they have scars on their souls or they wouldn’t act the way they do…. I have seen many things through our ups and downs, many families, mothers, fathers, children…Some people don’t get the chance to heal from the scars they are dealt with… I would like to ask you two questions, how can you help? Will help persecute, or roll up your sleeves and pitch in at a soup kitchen?

I never felt Empowered at the Medias interpretation of single motherhood. It always implied that they were not whole untill after they found a male partner to share the load with. Full House worked well for a single widowed father of 3. I actually really like that show and he never got married as far as I can recall.America the christian nation, guided by beliefs,values that represent all of us that are present in our society,educational system. Ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!I Yes. I grew up in the church and had a perfect family. I however didn’t follow my good book and failed to do the right thing. I was foolish and weak and even then too chicken shit to make the better choice, I am a grown woman with two kids. I have my job and provide for them with no help. I drive a nice car and spend vacations away. I am close to my family and the children need not or want of any caring or affection. I knew God before I knew any Man and so they could not ever compare or come close to the intense love and acceptance I get from him. The Children’s father was lacking in all the ways that a partner could in the beginning I didn’t want to leave him because of the shame of my family my church and society. It’s a heavy burden to bear. It is just as I thought and suspected nothing has changed. No matter how Empowering the NEW! propaganda claims to be! The shame and stigma is still there. There is no need to put more salt on the wound. Single women are well aware that men in America view us as bottom feeders, damaged goods,looking to snag one, secure retirements….etc.It is very sad to see this . It doesn’t matter how successful you may be but the one failure from the past is what you will judged for. I Stay busy with kids,work,sports,friends and church. Our family vacations consist of visiting family in New York or Miami for the summer. I pray that my innocent children don’t encounter this judgement and hostility. My Mother and Father are still alive and my grandparents, aunts and uncles will prove to be good enough examples for them.
For as long as I stay living here in America I don’t plan on getting married with any American. Jesus Love is enough for me so I am never lonely. Many of my international friends have also noticed that Americans are the most Hateful,racist,judgmental people around the world.